Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GULL ISLAND PROTECTION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

IPSWICH PORT AUTHORITY BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

United States Bases

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons from United States bases in the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now publish a statement on the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons by the United States from United Kingdom bases.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 7 May:
Under the Churchill-Truman arrangements, there are no circumstances in which American aircraft based in this country may be used without our consent in military operations planned by the United States."—[Official Report, 7 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 132.]

Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his answer, the confidence of British people in consultations between ourselves and Washington has been severely shattered by the way in which our bases were used for the attack on Libya? Does he agree that the very least for which we can ask is more consultation in future, and, better still, no use of NATO bases for non-NATO purposes?

Mr. Younger: That is a somewhat surprising question, because, while there is plenty of room for controversy about all aspects of this matter, the one thing that is perfectly clear is that the consultation procedure is satisfactory and has worked extremely well.

Mrs. Clwyd: In view of the Secretary of State's answer and the Government's total subservience to the United States Government, will he tell us to what extent the arrangements involve the use of Britain as a strategic base for the Americans in the event of another attack in which the Americans are the principal belligerents?

Mr. Younger: The answer has been made clear many times. If there were to be any further request from the United States for any further such action, it would be an entirely new request and would have to be considered afresh by my right hon. Friend and myself.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the remarks of Opposition Members and confirm that the arrangements were found perfectly satisfactory by preceding Governments—not only Conservative, but Labour?

Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, the original agreement was negotiated with the Americans by a Labour Government under Mr. Attlee.

Mr. Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the use of bases, such as Upper Heyford, will always be a decision for both Governments and that nothing has changed? Will he further confirm that that has been the position in the past and will be the position in future? Is that not the safeguard that has protected us for many years past and will do so for many years to come?

Mr. Younger: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. The arrangements have been perfectly satisfactory, and we have no intention of changing them.

Mr. Foulkes: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the same arrangements apply for missiles fired from United States submarines sailing out of United Kingdom bases?

Mr. Younger: Yes, the same arrangements apply to all bases.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is more than a certain offensiveness about the suggestion that American forces—which, as a nation, by heart and resolve, are valiant allies—are somehow or other the enemies of our freedom? Without the Americans, what freedom would we have in the Western world?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct in what he says. It is quite clear that the defence of this country depends entirly upon defending it in conjunction with our allies, and our principal ally in the NATO Alliance is the United States. It is our closest ally by a long way.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangements for the use of conventional weapons are no different from those for the use of chemical weapons? As the Government seem to be determined next week, or the week after, to allow binary chemical bombs to be established at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath, will he confirm that the rules regarding the use of those bombs will be no different from those regarding the bombs used to attack Libya?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that that arises, because there are no chemical weapons stored in the United Kingdom and we have no intention of agreeing to chemical weapons being stored here by the United States. Obviously, if it were to ask us to do so, the matter would have to be considered.

Strategic Defence Initiative

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the progress of strategic defence initiative research.

Mr. Younger: Progress of SDI research as a whole is a matter for the United States Government.

Mr. Wardell: In view of the leaking of the memorandum of understanding on SDI between the West German Government and the United States Government, will the Secretary of State now publish the agreement between the British and American Governments before it is also leaked?

Mr. Younger: The details of the memorandum of understanding between the British and United States Governments contain confidential matters which it would not be appropriate to publish. However, I have by arrangement, on a classified basis, supplied the details of the memorandum to the Defence Select Committee, which I hope it will find helpful.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a little concern about his initial answer? As I understand it, my right hon. Friend's predecessor and Mr. Weinberger took a particular and detailed interest in the agreement to ensure effective implementation. In the light of agreements between the Federal Republic of Germany and Israel, does my right hon. Friend feel that it is a matter of urgency that some progress can be demonstrated to those who follow these matters?

Mr. Younger: It is certainly desirable that progress can be demonstrated in our participation in the SDI research programme. All memorandums of understanding are not necessarily the same. For classified reasons, it would not be appropriate to publish ours.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State say whether the classification is based on commercial or defence reasons, or both? If it is only for defence reasons, when will we know the commercial background to these matters, and who will control the outcome of the research—us or the Pentagon?

Mr. Younger: There are both commercial and defence reasons for the confidentiality, so it would not be proper to publish the memorandum of understanding. However, I hope that the House will find it an acceptable compromise for the Defence Select Committee to see the memorandum on a classified basis.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Soviet Union has been exploring this area for many years, that if we had not taken part in the initiative nothing would have stopped the United States from creaming off some of our brightest and best academics to participate, and that, through our participation, we may be able to influence the important decision whether this important initiative is implemented in due course?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. If we had decided not to take any part in this purely research programme it would have continued regardless, without any participation by British companies. Indeed, there would have been considerable danger that skilled British technicians would have had to emigrate to America to participate, and that would not have been in our interests in any respect.

Nuclear Testing

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what need there is for nuclear testing by or on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Younger: The United Kingdom requires to carry out nuclear tests in order to maintain the effectiveness of its nuclear defence capabilities.

Mr. Lloyd: Given the evidence from the Chernobyl disaster and the effects of radiation, even at low radiation yields equivalent to a 1 kilotonne bomb, can the Secretary of State tell us whether Britain's interests would be better served by guaranteeing that our missiles are sent on a day when the wind is in the right direction, or by moving towards a verifiable test ban treaty, which we now know is possible?

Mr. Younger: The Government's policy is to work in every way possible for a comprehensive test ban treaty. The principal obstacle to a treaty being concluded now is the absence of any effective verification procedures. I do not think that there is any connection with the Chernobyl disaster other than that.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nuclear warheads come in a wide range of sizes, with the ability to cause equally wide-ranging devastation, and that they can also be fitted to a variety of different delivery systems? Does he further agree that, to bring together the right warheads with the right delivery systems to meet the changing needs of our defence requirements, it is essential that continuing testing goes on while the opposite side are doing the same?

Mr. Younger: We all wish that a way can be found, as soon as possible, of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether, but, while they are there, testing is essential for safety and operational reasons. The Government's policy is to do everything possible to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty as soon as verification can be made credible.

Mr. Strang: Is not the Government's assertion that verification procedures and techniques are not yet available rejected by leading scientists, not only in the Soviet Union and the United States, but here? Does not his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) make it clear that, far from wanting a comprehensive test ban treaty, the Government simply pay lip-service to that objective, while their real objective is to continue nuclear testing to develop new nuclear weapons?

Mr. Younger: I do not accept any of that. One can find scientists in this country who will say that verification can be achieved, and others who say the opposite. The advice that is given to me is that verification is very far from being 100 per cent. effective, or even acceptable in its present state. We must do all that we can to encourage the Soviet Union to agree further measures on verification, so that we can make progress.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that while Polaris and Trident are American delivery vessels, the warheads are British and, if they are to work, they must be tested?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. While these weapons exist and we have them, for all these reasons we must test them from time to time. However, none of that is against our ultimate aim of having a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Mr. Wallace: Is not the Secretary of State's last answer the key to it—that verification is put up only as a thin excuse, which is not even accepted in many parts of the United States Government, for not progressing towards a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is not the development of the Trident warhead stopping Britain from taking advantage of its unique position to take initiatives in seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty?

Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman thinks a little further about this matter, he will appreciate that a comprehensive test ban treaty, or any test ban treaty, which it was not possible to be absolutely certain that we could verify, would be worth nothing and would be an extremely dangerous measure for us to embark upon.

Mr. Shersby: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to carry out atmospheric tests with nuclear weapons?

Mr. Younger: There is no change in our normal policy on nuclear tests, and we do not make advance announcements of when and where they will take place.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's first answer was the correct one. He made it clear that the Government will not agree to a comprehensive ban treaty because that would deny the effectiveness that the Government require. Why does he not come clean and make it clear that it is nothing to do with verification or safety, but that, to get Trident, the Government must test the warheads?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is clear that a test ban treaty, or a test ban, without credible means of verification is not worth anything, and it would be an extremely dangerous course on which to embark. I hope that, whatever other disagreements we may have on this difficult subject, we can at least agree that if we are to have a test ban, we must have adequate verification first.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to increase the take-up places under the YTS scheme by persons for whom his Department is responsible: and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces outlined steps being taken to encourage armed services YTS recruitment in his answer to questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 15 April, at columns 712–13.

Mr. Colvin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that 2,700 youngsters have done armed services YTS, and 60 per cent. are staying on for regular service in the armed forces. Nevertheless, only about a quarter of the ASYTS places are being taken up. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will tell us what he proposes to do to promote YTS in the armed forces to a greater extent, perhaps through a cadet corps, particularly now that, with the introduction of the two-year YTS, greater training facilities will be available in particular qualifications for City and Guilds?

Mr. Lee: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. We shall consider his specific suggestions. We continue to promote the scheme actively through visits by service school liaison officers, several thousand such visits are planned this year, and there will be a new range of publicity material. There are some pleasing aspects. Of the participants in armed forces YTS about 60 per cent. have gone on to regular engagements. On the civilian YTS, approximately 70 per cent. have gone on to full apprenticeships with us.

Mr. Douglas: We welcome the fact that there are new entrants in the services in the lower echelons, but what is happening to the attrition rate in the higher echelons? We seem to be losing highly skilled personnel, especially from the Royal Navy. Is that loss related to the lack of ordering of new classes of vessels, especially the types 22 and 23? When will orders be placed to suit the services so that we can keep our highly skilled personnel?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is an extremely skilled parliamentarian. His specific question on frigates comes somewhat lower on the Order Paper. This early question does not really relate to the question on YTS.

Mr. Conway: Are those who do not convert from these schemes to regular service given information that may lead them to enlist in the Territorial Army?

Mr. Lee: I am not aware whether they are given specific information about possible engagement in the Territorial Army. I shall certainly look into that specific suggestion.

Mr. Allen McKay: Would not popularisation of YTS ensure that those who participated in it could, if they wished, join the armed forces afterwards?

Mr. Lee: I shall certainly take up that point.

Space-launched Weapons (Soviet Union)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the most up-to-date information available to him about progress by the Soviet Union's research and development programme for space-launched weapons systems.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I refer my hon. Friend to the paper that I have placed in the Library entitled "The Soviet Ballistic Missile Defence Programme". I refer my hon. Friend also to the United States Government's assessment in "Soviet Military Power 1986," a copy of which is also in the Library.
The Soviet Union has a long-standing and broadly based research and development programme relevant to space-based weapons systems and is the only country to have already deployed an anti-satellite weapons system.

Mr. Chapman: In the light of that reply, does my right hon. Friend not regard it as the height of hypocrisy for the Soviet Union's leadership to condemn the United States strategic defence initiative research programme as destabilising? If we are to have verifiable, balanced, multilateral disarmament, which we all want, is it not incumbent on the Soviet Union to come clean and be open and honest about its own star wars programme?

Mr. Stanley: I certainly agree that there is no basis on which the Soviet Union can criticise the United States for


an extensive research programme on ballistic missile defence, because the Soviet Union has been engaged on such a programme since the 1960s. The Soviet Union possesses and is upgrading around Moscow the world's only system of active anti-ballistic missile defences, which employs nuclear-tipped missiles capable of destroying targets beyond the atmosphere. It has an operational anti-satellite system, and it is conducting substantial programmes on advanced technologies relevant to ballistic missile defence, including high-powered lasers, kinetic energy and particle beam weapons and heavy-lift space launchers. In fact, since 1976 the Soviet Union has conducted more than twice as many launches as the rest of the world put together, 80 per cent. of them military in nature.

Mr. Wilkinson: Taking account of the Soviet Union's space and science budget, most of which is devoted to military purposes, such as research and development into strategic defence systems, is not the overall military capability of the Soviet Union much greater than one would estimate, judging by those defence expenditure figures which are made public?

Mr. Stanley: The Soviet Union certainly has an enormous research and development programme. Over a long period it has carried out a major research programme into the possibility of a strategic defence system.

Mr. James Lamond: If we know as much as that about the Soviet Union's space research programme, is it not surprising that we claim we cannot verify whether the Soviet Union is testing nuclear bombs?

Mr. Stanley: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that scientifically that is a quite different proposition.

Aish and Company, Poole

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the question of Mr. Jim Smith and Aish and Company of Poole in the past month.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) recently raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I have written to the hon. Member.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that I have spent the past 12 months investigating the affair of Mr. Jim Smith and Aish and Company? The conclusion that I draw is that officials at the Ministry of Defence have deliberately misled Ministers as to the effectiveness of post costing arrangements within the Ministry of Defence? They know that it was Mr. Smith who found the excess profits being charged by Aish and Company. When the report of the Public Accounts Committee is produced in two weeks, will the Minister take it home and read it in detail, follow its recommendations, and make a statement to the House?

Mr. Lamont: I have not spent the past year researching this subject, as has the hon. Gentleman, but it sometimes feels as though I have spent the last year preparing for the hon. Gentleman's questions on this matter. I take seriously what he says. However, I fail to follow what motive he thinks Ministry of Defence officials would have in denying things which he believes to be true. I cannot understand

that motive. Of course I shall look at the Public Accounts Committee's report, and I shall be interested to see whether there is any evidence to cause us to change our conclusions.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the allocated number of cruise missiles to be placed in the United Kingdom has now been completed.

Mr. Stanley: Information on the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom is provided in the "Annual Statement on the Defence Estimates." I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 320 of the 1986 Estimates, which were published yesterday, which indicates that the deployment of 96 cruise missiles at RAF Greenham common has been completed. Deployment of the remaining 64 missiles at RAF Molesworth is not due to be completed until 1988.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise the depth of worry in this country about cruise missiles? Is he aware that the vast majority of the British people are against them, especially in the atmosphere of worry about nuclear issues generally? Is it not a fact that a wave of horror went through this country when the Prime Minister took a personal decision about the bombing of Libya, without consulting even the Foreign Minister or the Cabinet, and that a deep worry about cruise missiles now pervades this country?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the recent events in Libya had nothing to do with INF missiles. I think that more people in this country are worried about the scale of the continued programme of deployment of long-range INF missiles by the Soviet Union. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when NATO initially took its twin-track decision on the deployment of INF missiles, the Soviet Union had 693 long-range INF warheads facing west—Europe—and it has already increased that number to 922, which are now deployed. I believe that the scale of that programme is the biggest single concern among the British people.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Cambridgeshire, far from being worried about Government policy on the location of cruise missiles there, at last Thursday's local elections the Conservatives won four seats from the Liberals and two from Labour?

Mr. Stanley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the results that he achieved in his constituency, which all Conservative Members will be seeking to emulate next May.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the more pleasing features about recent events in relation to cruise missiles has been that members of cruise watch have been able to harry the movements of those cruise missiles to a greater extent than ever before? Of course, we would like them to be even more successful. Will the hon. Gentleman condemn the tactics used by those who are driving the missile carriers in thier attempts to frustrate the peaceful efforts of those who are standing up for the majority in Britain, especially after the Libyan bombing?

Mr. Stanley: I note the hon. Gentleman's support for the protesters on the public highway, but I am afraid that


I have to disappoint him. The programme of exercises for ground-launched cruise missiles is continuing very well and is not being disrupted by the protesters.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Soviet Government and Warsaw Pact powers made an immense propaganda effort to prevent those missiles being based in the West? The programme has gone forward, and all of us in the West feel much happier for that reason.

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that it is not a coincidence that the fact that the NATO countries have gone ahead with their deployment option on INF missiles has, for the first time, brought the Soviet Union back to the INF negotiating table. I hope that it will provide a means of bringing about a fair and equitable arms control agreement in relation to those nuclear missiles.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister confirm that at the time of the United States raid on Libya, cruise missiles were placed on amber alert? Were the Government consulted before that took place?

Mr. Stanley: There was no change at all in nuclear alert states at that time.

Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-nuclear lobby asserted that the deployment of cruise in the United Kingdom and Europe would wreck any chance of arms reduction talks? Does he agree that the opposite has happened? Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government's continuing commitment to a mutual, balanced, and verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons?

Mr. Stanley: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I shall most certainly restate that commitment to an equitable, verifiable arms control agreement in INF and elsewhere. The pattern of the INF negotiations has once again brought out the old adage that the Soviet Union is prepared to negotiate on arms control provided that we are negotiating from a position of some strength.

Laser-guided Weapons

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has undertaken any research into the accuracy of laser-guided weapons.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Marek: If the Government have undertaken research into the accuracy of weapons that will be deployed if the SDI ever comes to fruition, can the Minister give any guarantees that the United States will not simply use this country for the technology that is available here and then use that technology without paying the proper price for it? What guarantees can the Minister give the House that that will not happen?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman seems to be jumping from laser-guided weapons to the SDI agreement. We have made it clear to the House on many occasions that the memorandum of understanding that we have signed with the United States Government protects our own intellectual property rights and safeguards our freedom to exploit the fruits of British research in British companies. We are wholly satisfied on the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

United States Air Force (Bases)

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Air Force stations are currently used as bases by the United States air force.

Mr. Stanley: The USAF's main operating bases in the United Kingdom are at the following seven RAF stations: Alconbury, Bentwaters, Fairford, Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Upper Heyford and Woodbridge. The USAF makes use of other RAF bases and facilities elsewhere.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those United States bases make a substantial contribution to the defence of this country, and that the removal of those bases, as advocated by the Labour party, and the replacement of that cover by the Royal Air Force, would place an intolerable burden on the defence budget?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the United States presence in this country, including the USAF presence, is an integral part of Western Europe's deterrent, which is faced by the Soviet Union. I also agree that the Labour party's commitment to make the Americans remove their bases from this country is one of the most damaging attacks on NATO, and one of the most damaging defence policies that has ever been adopted by any British political party.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister not accept that there is increasing concern among the public living around all the RAF bases used by the USAF, and also in areas over which Fl 1 1s and other United States aircraft fly in their training role? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for a review of low-level flying throughout the United Kingdom? Did he read the remarks of Henry Kissinger in the press recently, where he argued for a withdrawal of F1lls to the USA?

Mr. Stanley: With regard to the final part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it remains our view, and it remains the view of the United States Administration, that the forward American deployment in western Europe is integral to the defence of western Europe. Low flying is a separate issue. It is subject to special rules that we have laid down. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular complaints in relation to his own constituency, we shall of course look at them.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not clear that the presence of United States' bases in Britain, and specifically the nuclear element, has played a key role in maintaining the peace and freedom of western Europe over the past 35 years? Is there not a real possibility that in the event of the implementation of either a Liberal or Socialist defence policy of getting rid of American cruise missiles and nuclear weapons from British soil, that could lead to the withdrawal of all US bases from this country, which would precipitate the disintegration of the NATO Alliance?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that if the official Opposition were able to implement the policies to which they are committed there would be profound reverberations throughout NATO and profound damage to NATO. The striking contrast between the defence position in Europe now compared with 50 years ago is that 30 years ago the Americans had withdrawn to the other side of the Atlantic. Today, the forward defence position of the


United States is seen to be inside western Europe, and that is why we can look forward with much greater confidence to continuing peace than our predecessors did in the 1930s.

Mr. Denzil Davies: If NATO, in a few weeks' time, agree, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Defence, to establish binary chemical bombs in Britain, at which of the bases to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred will they be located?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman was in the House when we dealt with a private notice question on that matter a few days ago. We made it clear then that we are considering the adoption or otherwise of a NATO force goal. I made it clear in answer to questions then that there were no plans by the United States to make any deployment of chemical weapons outside the United States in peace time.

Mr. Powley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the important strategic defence presence of American bases in this country, there is an important economic factor in that presence for East Anglia and other areas? Does my right hon. Friend accept that if American bases were thrown out of this country there would be a serious economic loss? Jobs would be lost in East Anglia, in my constituency, as a result of any implemention of the Labour party's initiative on this issue.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that United States' forces in the United Kingdom are estimated to spend more than £600 million a year on goods and services, and that they sustain, directly or indirectly, some 30,000 jobs. I am sure that that fact will not be lost on the electorate of East Anglia or on the voters in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that his constituents will give him the same support at the next general election as they gave at the last one.

Military Bases (Red Alert)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions during the past 20 years bases of armed forces in the United Kingdom have been put on red alert other than for non-emergency practice purposes.

Mr. Stanley: As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on 12 April 1984, there has been no warning of an imminent attack on the United Kingdom since 1945, nor have British or allied forces in this country been deployed to react to one.

Mr. Wigley: Can the Minister confirm that American forces based in the United Kingdom may be put on red or amber alert without prior notification or consultation with the United Kingdom Government?

Mr. Stanley: It has been made clear, not least by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that if there is any question of a change in the nuclear alert state of United States' forces, the British Government would be informed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend not sick and tired of the perpetual attacks on the United States of America by the Opposition? Does he agree that the people of this country, who are responsible and concerned about defence and security, are grateful for the tremendous contribution that the United States makes to the defence of the Western world? Will my right hon. Friend tell us

what it would cost the United Kingdom and western Europe to fill the gap that would be left if the United States' forces returned to North America?

Mr. Stanley: The cost would be absolutely enormous. I entirely endorse all the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. The great majority of the British people are heartily sick of the non-stop anti-Americanism displayed by the Labour party.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In answer to a previous question the right hon. Gentleman said that chemical weapons would not be located in Britain—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must related his question to the present question and not to a previous one.

Mr. Davies: We are concerned to know where those chemical weapons would be deployed in Britain.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The same rules must apply to everyone. This is a question on red alerts.

Mr. Davies: Would it be on a red alert or would it be in a time of tension, as the United States Senate has said?

Mr. Stanley: That is a totally academic point, because the issue at the moment is whether NATO adopts the United States force goal. The Americans have made it clear that there will be no deployment in peace time outside the United States.

Defence Commitments

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he plans any changes in the application of defence resources to the various defence commitments.

Mr. Younger: I will be taking decisions in the usual way on the use of defence resources, but I see no need for fundamental changes in our main defence commitments.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as defence costs rise, there will inevitably in due course be a need to review commitments? If commitments are to be reviewed, does he agree that that which is least consistent with fair burden-sharing among the NATO allies is the maintenance of 55,000 troops and a tactical air force in Germany?

Mr. Younger: If there were in the future a need to reconsider any of our main defence commitments, they would have to be the subject of careful consultation with NATO before they were carried out, but there is no such need at present.

Dr. Owen: Does the Secretary of State intend to announce the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and make a statement about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another question about that next.

Mr. Younger: I have already made it clear that I expect to consider those matters later on this summer.

Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend may know that I visited Swan Hunter's yard on Tyneside on Friday. Is he aware just how short of orders that fine yard is and how worrying it is to the workers there that they are still awaiting the O2 order of the type 23 frigate?

Mr. Younger: I am well aware of that position. As my hon. Friend knows, we are evaluating the bid that Swan Hunter has made for the type 23 frigate, No. O2.

Mr. Duffy: In view of yesterday's defence statement, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the commitment by his Government to provide a modern surface fleet of approximately 50 destroyers and frigates by the mid-1990s will be fulfilled?

Mr. Younger: I made it reasonably clear yesterday that while there will be some difficult decisions in the usual review of costings in the defence budget, I expect the general size of the Royal Navy to remain broadly as it is at present.

HMS Fearless and Intrepid

Mr. Ashdown: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the amphibious ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

Mr. Stanley: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which has just been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister realise that the life of those important capital ships is fast coming to a close? [Interruption.] Unless a decision is taken soon on this matter, Britain's capacity to fulfil her NATO tasks on the flanks of NATO will be severely impaired. If he will not announce a decision now, will he at least announce when he will announce a decision or announce something that will help us in this matter?

Mr. Stanley: The life of those ships is not fast coming to a close, because Intrepid has just been refitted and Fearless will refit next year.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that the Minister of State has enjoyed, as we have, the keenness of both wings of the alliance to get the headlines on those two ships. It is perhaps the only defence issue on which they are united.
Does not the postponement of decisions on those two ships, together with the postponement of other decisions, show the extent to which Trident is squeezing out the conventional defence of the United Kingdom? Are we not now witnessing the Army, and the Navy in particular, suffering at the expense of Trident expenditure as Ministers postpone decision after decision, hoping to be saved from them when they lose the next general election?

Mr. Stanley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on postponement. We have been saying for a long time that the decisions on the replacement of amphibious shipping will be taken this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just repeated that.

Binary Chemical Weapons

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts to discuss proposals to equip the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with binary chemical weapons.

Mr. Younger: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces explained in answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 7 March, a force goal concerning the modernisation of United States' chemical weapon stocks is being considered collectively within NATO. My NATO colleagues and I will meet to discuss allied defence planning matters at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee on 22 May.

Mr. Wallace: What would be the Secretary of State's attitude to the force goal, having regard to reports that the United States' current stock of chemical weapons is still serviceable, and having regard to the moral repugnance that those weapons create? Is it not a waste of valuable military resources on something which may not serve the purpose for which it was designed?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is aware that this is a matter for discussion within NATO. For our part, we believe that there is a vast and increasing capability in the Soviet Union. NATO and the United States should consider their response to that capability.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Fraser: In view of the shattering rejection that the Government's policies received at the polls last Thursday, not least in Lambeth and Finchley, what changes does the Prime Minister intend to make in policies or in Ministers, or does she contemplate leaving the job to someone else?

The Prime Minister: I thought it was a pretty shattering rejection of Labour policies.

Sir Hector Monro: In view of the importance of jobs in Scotland and exports from Britain, how did the discussions go with Korea and Japan on the Scotch whisky industry? Is there any further hope of additional exports to those countries?

The Prime Minister: The matter was raised with both countries, and I understood from the Japanese Prime Minister that it would be considered. I put our point robustly that they have promised to consider it before that and their promises have not so far come to very much.

Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that she will not be the most significant lady in the House this afternoon? Will she cease to listen to those of her colleagues, semi-detached or otherwise, who tell her that the Government's policies are not getting through? They are getting through—on unemployment, education and transport—and they are being wholly rejected.

The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that I had a similar question after the Crosby by-election. That was 18 months before our splendid win at the following general election.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to congratulate the Conservatives in my constituency of Batley and Spen who won a Labour seat against all odds?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate those people on their wisdom in the local election and on their wisdom in choosing my hon. Friend as a Member for Parliament in the general election.

Mr. Maxton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Maxton:: As the Prime Minister's party obtained only 16 per cent. of the vote in Scotland, as it no longer controls one regional council in Scotland, and as the Tory party will be lucky to retain five Conservative seats in Scotland at the next general election, does she really consider that there has been a shattering rejection of Labour party policies, or does she agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said that the result reflected the Government's failure to do their job?

The Prime Minister: Opposition Members sometimes say that we have no mandate to govern Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that on that basis four out of the last five Labour Governments had no mandate to govern England.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the result of the local election in Wandsworth shows that people want a combination of low rates and efficient public services which offers value for money? Will my right hon. Friend continue to pursue policies at a national level that are designed to secure those objectives?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As the months go by, many ratepayers will wish that they had followed Wandsworth's example.

Mr. Mark Hughes: To change the subject from electioneering, can the Prime Minister say what her Government's response will be to Christian Aid week, given their appalling record during the past seven years?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that our record has not been appalling. We led our European colleagues on granting and getting aid given to Ethiopia. We have an excellent record of aid to Ethiopia and other countries in Africa. However, I wish Christian Aid week well, and hope that people will give generously.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dykes: As there has been a further fall in the rate of inflation, and as there is now a negligible Budget deficit, cannot we use those Government successes to build a policy of new investment in the public sector to stimulate the economy? Could not that take precedence over all other matters, including tax cuts?

The Prime Minister: We are certainly heading for the lowest inflation rate since the 1960s. My hon. Friend will be very much aware of the Government's excellent record on building roads, and, in particular, hospitals. It is excellent.

Mr. Kinnock: When NHS consultants in London and elsewhere record that Health Service cuts are seriously jeopardising standards of health care and the training of doctors, and are resulting in lengthening waiting lists and a loss of acute services, does the Prime Minister still say that the Health Service is safe in her hands?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, far more resources have been put into the Health Service—from £7·5 billion in the first year that we took over from Labour to £17·5 billion now. There has been a

great increase in the number of those practising medicine, doctors and nurses, and a great increase in the number of those treated in the Health Service. I believe that they are treated better as medical services improve. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reason for the changes in London. Resources have been moved further north under policies started by a Labour Government. Does he now reject and renounce those policies?

Mr. Kinnock: Surely the Prime Minister must know, since everybody else does, that London's loss has not been anybody else's real gain. When she offers that litany—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister not even begin to understand the difference between statistics and people? Statistics do not feel pain; people do.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Resources have been steadily moved further north for many years at the cost of we London Members—[Interruption.] I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he is against that reallocation policy. I therefore assume that he is asking us to stop it.

Mr. Kinnock: Everybody knows that the RAWP policy was acceptable everywhere for as long as the NHS was expanding adequately. When it is being cut, that policy is a betrayal of the people, north, south, east and west.

The Prime Minister: There were two years under the Labour Government when the money spent on the Health Service was actually reduced. The fact is that expenditure was £7·5 billion in the last year of the Labour Government and £17·5 billion this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman learn a little arithmetic?

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Mininster accept a little reality? On the question of the crisis in acute beds in London and the surrounding areas, is she aware that the protest by the 10 teaching hospitals, led by Mr. Richard Thompson of St. Thomas's, means that in the last fortnight nine of those hospitals have had to refuse the admission of emergency cases? Is she aware that because of the rationalisation of beds outside London the only place to which patients can come are the teaching hospitals in London? While congratulating the Minister for Health on giving our own Westminster hospital a two-year reprieve, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will do something about stopping the closure of the third major section, that is, the radiography and oncology departments, because we have already lost cardiac surgery and ophthalmology?

The Prime Minister: Provision for the Riverside health authority, which is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, is affected by the reallocation procedure, partly because the population will fall by 10 per cent. in the next eight years. Despite that, there has been a steady increase in the number of patients treated and a small increase in the number of staff directly concerned with patient care. However, the RAWP procedure is being considered and the National Health Service management board will report by the end of the year. I take it that the Labour party wants the end of the reallocation procedure which it started. The midlands and the north have


benefited very greatly from the increase in Health Service expenditure, which has gone from £7·5 billion under Labour to £17·5 billion a year.

Mr. Higgins: Is it not completely wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to give the impression that there have been cuts in total resources for the Health Service, when in reality they have increased? Is he aware that constituencies like mine, which benefit from the reallocation of resources, welcome the change very much indeed?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition does not know that to go from £7·5 billion to £17·5 billion a year is an increase and not a cut.

Mr. Foot: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any of the talk about a balanced team has reached her ears? Will she give us the assurance that her idea of a balanced team is the present incumbent of Conservative Central Office and Mr. Jeffrey Archer?

The Prime Minister: A balanced team won in 1979 and in 1983, and hopes to gain a third return ticket.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it remains just as much the case today as it was before last Thursday that living standards and social provision have to be earned and paid for? Does she agree that there will always be politicians who offer free beer, but that there are large numbers of electors who are nursing painful memories of the last binge, and that when it comes to the general election the people will vote soberly and sensibly for her policies of realism?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for policies which have brought an increased standard of living, increased production, increased wealth ownership throughout the country, better trade union reform and respect abroad. I believe the people will vote for us in a third election.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 13 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lloyd: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that there are now 13 million people in Britain living in

poverty? Can she say whether this is a record of which she is proud, or is the real truth that her Government have pauperised millions of our fellow citizens?

The Prime Minister: The standard of living, both of those in work and of those on social security, is higher than it has ever been before.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of the trust and support that we showed to the United States in its fight against terrorism recently, that there will be profound dismay throughout the whole of the United Kingdom if we do not have immediate approval of the extradition treaty?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The President and Administration are doing their best to try to bring that about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has gone to the United States to say how strongly we feel about it. I hope that both will be successful in achieving the desired result.

Mr. Mason: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what punishment she intends to mete out to her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who now has publicly portrayed her as the lame duck Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. He did in fact make many robust policy points on Sunday with which I wholly agree.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order for you arising out of Prime Minister's questions. We all appreciate the difficulty that you have in trying to make sure that all groups within the House have a chance to speak, especially at Prime Minister's Question Time. Some of us have noticed that, since the interview that the Leader of the House gave on television last Sunday, there are two discernible groups in the Tory camp. What we are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that in future, so that you get the balanced ticket right in the House of Commons, instead of calling just anybody from the Conservative Benches, you should make sure you call the Biffen faction and the Thatcher faction, so that that balance can be continued.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may like to know that I never watch television on Sunday.

Teachers (Pay)

Mr. Giles Radice: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the interim settlement of the teachers' pay dispute.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Last Friday the Burnham primary and secondary committee agreed to increase teachers' salaries in England and Wales from 1 April 1986 by 5·5 per cent. or £520, whichever is the greater. This agreement was reached following undertakings to the management panel from all the teacher associations represented on the teachers' panel. The entire teachers' panel has given an assurance that there will be a return to peace and calm in our schools immediately. The entire teachers' panel notes and supports the ACAS talks and will co-operate in every respect. The teachers' panel agrees that the payment at 1 April 1986 is without prejudice to any subsequent consideration by Burnham in the light of progress in the on-going talks embracing all the aspects being discussed under the aegis of ACAS.
This settlement clears the way for constructive discussion and negotiation under the leadership of the panel appointed by ACAS. It does not prejudge the outcome of the ACAS process and it is to that exercise that teachers, employers and the Government must look for a satisfactory longer-term outcome to the complex of issues raised by the recent dispute. I very much welcome the fact that the National Union of Teachers, which represents a substantial group of teachers in our schools, will now play a full part. We must all welcome the assurances now given about an immediate return to peace and calm in our schools.
The ACAS-led negotiations are addressing a range of issues—pay levels and structures, teachers' duties, teacher appraisal and career development and future negotiating machinery. Clearly, no Secretary of State can commit a Government in advance to the outcome of such an exercise, but I do wish the talks well and hope that they can result in satisfactory resolution of the fundamental problems arising from the present pay structure, the lack of definition about teachers' professional obligations, and performances appraisal and career development. The Government will consider the conclusions carefully and fully when those are available.

Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State accept that last week's agreement brings the prospect of peace and calm to our schools, ensures that the major teachers' union is involved in the ACAS talks and gives teachers a needed pay rise? Does he accept also that, while he and his Ministers have been content to stand on the sidelines as our schools have been disrupted, the Labour party has brought the two sides together and has been instrumental in achieving last Friday's agreement? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that for a long-term settlement to be achieved and for peace to be guaranteed in future, as he hopes, the Government must recognise the need for additional resources? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's successor will be more successful in persuading the Treasury than he has been.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that the National Union of Teachers has agreed to co-operate fully in the

negotiations, therefore acccepting that teachers' pay and teachers' duties must be considered at the same forum. I hope that the hon. Member for Durham accepts that—

Mr. Mark Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. He is not the Member for Durham.

Sir Keith Joseph: I refer to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). I hope that he now accepts what he has flinched from accepting before—that what teachers are paid and teachers' duties should be considered together.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is it not true that there has never been a more potent moment in history for the improvement of the education of our children, the uplifting of the morale of teachers, and the improved provision of children's education and that my right hon. Friend is the man who has brought the country to this position? Does he agree that teachers' pay is about 16 per cent. better now than it was when the Government came into office? Will he repudiate the Labour party for locking out the NUT from negotiations with the local authorities recently?

Sir Keith Joseph: I can agree with some of what my hon. Friend says. There are some long-standing and crucial issues for the quality of education; these can emerge if the negotiations are successful, and I hope that they are.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that, but for the intransigence of the Government and the Secretary of State, this progress could have been achieved 16 months ago? If that had happened, the disruption which has been caused IDy ordinary people who are not used to taking such action would not have continued. Is it not a more serious fact that the disruption will begin again unless some new money from the Government—never mind the local authorities—is put on the table to solve the problem and to educate our children in a proper way?

Sir Keith Joseph: Unfortunately, the NUT walked out of the negotiations in 1984 that could have led to this sort of result much earlier. That led the teachers' unions to reject negotiations on the quantified conditional offer of extra money from the Government and delayed the present negotiations for many months.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the damaging effect of the dispute on children in our schools and the way in which teachers have conducted themselves during the dispute, will my right hon. Friend look again at the suggestion that has been made over and over again by Conservative Members, that there should be a professional teachers council to help to raise the standards and morale in the teaching profession?

Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, if enough teachers approach me with a willingness to see such a council set up, but it would have to be subject to the Government's satisfaction that such a council would serve the interests of children as well as of teachers.

Mr. Clement Freud: While we greatly welcome the return of the NUT to the ACAS talks on sensible terms, does the Secretary of State not accept that ongoing talks need an ongoing Minister and that if we are to have constructive education policies we


must have faith in the continuity of the head of the Department? Does he realise how useless it is to education in general that a dearth of policies should now be coining from the Department which he nominally heads?

Sir Keith Joseph: The last thing that I have been accused of in recent years is a dearth of policies.

Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that continual harassment by the NUT is still taking place in many parts of the country, including refusal to cooperate with PTAs, absence from supervising lunch hour engagements and no parent-teacher meetings in many parts of the country? In view of this outrageous behaviour by the NUT, will my right hon. Friend ensure that ongoing teacher assessment is enshrined in any settlement that is reached?

Sir Keith Joseph: Teacher appraisal is one of the subjects that is being considered by the ACAS working party. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I very much hope that the NUT's undertaking that peace and calm would return to our schools will be fulfilled.

Mr. Jack Ashley: In view of the Secretary of State's comments about the National Union of Teachers, will he concede that teachers in particular and education in general would have been the poorer without the efforts of Fred Jarvis and his colleagues. (HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They deserve the support of both sides of the House of Commons.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I missed the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Ashley: May I rephrase it, Mr. Speaker? I am sorry that the Secretary of State is deaf. I shall repeat my question for him. The point I was making was that teachers in particular and education in general would be the poorer without the efforts of Fred Jarvis and his colleagues and that they deserve the support of both sides of the House of Commons.

Sir Keith Joseph: On no possible account could I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was that particular individual and his executive who wrecked the negotiations in 1984 and delayed negotiations for months and months in 1985 and 1986.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the dispute has been extremely damaging to children and very worrying to parents. Does he agree that the settlement of the dispute is widely welcomed on this side of the House? Will he take steps to arrange the payment of the £1·25 billion on a shorter time scale, as that would do a great deal to improve teacher morale, particularly if assessment were to be stitched closely into the agreement?

Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As to the second part, payment of the additional money specified by the Government depends upon satisfaction of the conditions laid down, and that is the subject of the discussions that are now taking place under ACAS.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Although the whole House will agree that the return of peace, high morale and high standards in our schools is urgently needed, does the Secretary of State not agree that if that objective is not rapidly achieved, the prospects for the new examination will be diminished, which means that it will be impossible to introduce it in September this year?

Sir Keith Joseph: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the disruption in our schools is entirely due to—(HON. MEMBERS: "You."}—the decision of the executives of the large teachers' unions, backed by a number of their members. I have constantly said that it is wrong and unprofessional to disrupt the education of children.

Mr. Richard Holt: Although we welcome the agreement, is my right hon. Friend aware that I hope that it will not be paid for by the closure of further community schools such as Huntcliff in Saltburr -on-Sea in my constituency?

Sir Keith Joseph: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenious supplementary question.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Although the Secretary of State now seeks to distance himself from and not intervene in the ACAS discussions, does he accept that it was his pressure and his manipulation behind the scenes that prevented an earlier settlement? Does he further accept that the current discussions are a sign of the failure of the Government's policy of trying to use children and parents to hatter the NUT?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is a grossly distorted point of view. It is the Government's intention to bring about improved quality of teaching for children of all abilities in our schools. For that purpose, we judge it necessary to open up possibilities for many more promotions, a much more promising career structure for teachers, a satisfactory pay structure for teachers and appraisal and more in-service training for teachers. If those conditions are satisfied, we shall ask the taxpayer to find additional money.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Mrs. Elizabeth Lois Shields, for Ryedale.

Patrick Allan McLoughlin, Esq., for Derbyshire, West.

Hospitals (Newcastle)

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The proposed closure of Health Service facilities in Newcastle hospitals".
The matter is important because the latest proposals for cuts follow the recent most severe assaults on Health Service provision in the northern region. The matter is urgent because the proposals became public knowledge today, and today this devastation of Health Service provision in the north should be stopped in its tracks. Our community is not prepared to tolerate the wicked, unfair and unequal closures imposed on our region.
I am grateful to Newcastle's local newspaper, The Journal, for making public the latest outrages. A further 166 hospital beds are to go in Newcastle. This time the excuse is forecasts of population nine years hence. Yet the cuts are to be made now, lengthening waiting lists across the northern region.
Already under the existing provision, 77 per cent. of cases which were urgent last September waited more than a month for treatment. The treatment of urgent cases in the northern region is far worse than the national average.
The position has been exacerbated yet further by the Government's consistent failure to bring funding into line even with national average provision under the resource allocation working party revenue targets. In a recently published letter, Professor Sam Shuster said:
In Newcastle last year, money was available for replacement of less than 10 per cent. of required medical equipment in the teaching hospital. In December we had to reduce spending by 10 per cent. and in January our district health authority found itself short of £3 million, not from overspending but from Government's failure to honour its responsibility for inflationary increases in rates and salaries. The deficit will be met by closing a children's hospital and orthopaedic and dermatology wards although this will seriously affect the work of several departments.
The steady and consistent closure of Health Service provision in the northern region is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority both of our community and of the region's publicly elected representatives. This outrage should be stopped now, and if this Government will not stop it, the next Government most certainly will.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The proposed closure of Health Service facilities in Newcastle hospitals.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House. I hope that he will find other methods of bringing it before us.

Para-Pace Limited, Cramlington

Mr. John Ryman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
The peremptory closure, without notice, of the Para-Pace Limited factory in Cramlington by the management, the disappearance of valuable machinery purchased with regional grant funds for that factory, and the refusal to pay any wages and redundancy payments to the entire work force.
The facts of the case are short and disgraceful. The company received substantial regional grant funds as recently as March 1985. Last week, without any notice to the work force, the factory was closed by the management, valuable machinery was removed, no wages were paid, and the management, in the form of the principal shareholder, did a moonlight flit, disappeared and cannot be found. I drew those matters to the attention of the Department of Trade and Industry, and yesterday the Minister responsible kindly saw me. Both he and his officials were extremely helpful, and I pay tribute to them for that.
The plain fact remains that the entire work force, which consists of women, has been left high and dry without wages, without redundancy payments and with no prospect of recovering them as the law stands. There has been no receivership and no liquidation, so they cannot obtain payments to which they would otherwise be entitled from the Department of Employment. It is a disgraceful state of affairs, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider urgently granting the facilities for this matter to be debated today, notwithstanding the important debates that have already been arranged.
This is typical of what happens in the north-east, when some people obtain regional grants but, when they are in financial difficulties, do a moonlight flit, throw out the work force without paying them, and remove machinery—bought with regional grant funds—which, in one way or another, leaves the region and disappears. That is an abuse of public money and a denial of the rights of the work force. In this case, the workers have been left helpless. I have advised them to apply for a liquidation so as to rank as preferential creditors, and the documents for that will be drawn up in my office this afternoon.
It is important that we discuss this matter urgently to find out what the Government can do about it. I ask you to intervene in this disgraceful state of affairs, Mr. Speaker. A serious fraud has been committed. I have given the name of the individual to the Minister, but I shall not mention it in public. However, I ask you to assist me in obtaining time today to debate this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The peremptory closure, without notice, of the Para-Pace Limited factory in Cramlington by the management.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decison that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business set down for today and tomorrow. I regret that I


do not consider the matter that the hon. Member has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.

Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 813) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Quota and Other Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 787) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Question agreed to

Shops (No. 2)

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law relating to Sunday trading and to amend the Shops Acts.
Those of us in the Conservative party who opposed the Government's Shops Bill always argued that a fair compromise was possible between the need to reform the law and the desire to keep Sunday as a special day.

Mr. Richard Page: What about amendments?

Mr. Stanbrook: We were dealing only with the Second Reading.
That was not the view of the Government, who believed that the only way to reform the law was to abolish all restrictions on Sunday trading. It was their view that the position of Sunday would not thereby be harmed. As the House knows, the Government's Bill was rejected, and we are told that it will not be restored.
Therefore, we are left with the situation in which almost everyone agrees that the present law is unsatisfactory and the need for reform urgent. Ministers actually gave these grounds for introducing the Bill in the first place. If it is true, it is hard to see how they can put off legislating, or encouraging private Members' legislation, in a Parliament that still has another two years to run. On the other hand, many Conservative Members want to assist the Government out of the dilemma by suggesting the main lines of a compromise that they, at least, would be prepared to support.
The Bill is an attempt to produce that compromise. It starts from the basic principle that Sunday is a special day, the status of which should be supported by legal restrictions on the opening of shops on Sunday. Subject to that principle, it proposes the deregulation of Sunday trading for all small shops and the removal of restrictions on garden centres. For larger shops that serve the needs of the public in their leisure and recreational activities, including do-it-yourself shops, there is provision for opening on Sundays for a limited period at the option of the local authority. There is provision for holiday resorts and tourist areas. No shop that opens lawfully now would be subject to further restrictions.
Like all compromises, the Bill will not wholly satisfy anyone. It will certainly not please those large enterprises which seek to make Sunday just another trading day. As for most small shops, it is fear of losing trade to the big stores that would drive them to open on Sundays. Without that fear, it is unlikely that many would open except to meet existing local demand. The Bill defines small shops as those with no more than three persons engaged in the business of the shop present at any one time. Obviously, this and other details would be open to amendment in Committee—[Laughter.]—on a free vote.
The passage of this Bill, or something like it, would put to rest a controversy which has bedevilled local government, undermined the law, frustrated commercial enterprise and affronted the consciences of millions of people. It will make the law of Sunday trading simple. fair and enforceable, with the minimum of anomalies, while at the same time preserving Sunday as a special day, a day predominantly of rest, recreation and family life. I ask the House to give me leave to bring in the Bill.

Mr. Tony Baldry: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Baldry: I wish to oppose the Bill, Sir. I do not intend to take up time by dividing the House, but I believe that a number of points should be made.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) is making an hone1st and honourable attempt to—

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I know what the hon. Member is going to say.

Mr. Cook: I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I thought that it was against the rules of the House for an hon. Member to object to a ten-minute Bill if he did not intend to divide the House.

Mr. Speaker: Normally, if an hon. Member seeks to oppose a ten-minute Bill, his feet should follow his voice.

Mr. Baldry: Let us see where we get, Mr. Speaker. A number of points need to be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington suggests that we can get around the present anomaly on Sunday trading by drawing up a number of categories of shops and saying that certain categories should be allowed to open on Sundays. Who will define a small shop? My hon. Friend says that it is a shop in which only three people are employed. Clearly, that will result in enforcement problems, and inspectors will need constantly to check whether shops are employing more than three people. Shops will need constantly to notify local authorities of the number of people they employ.
Garden centres will be allowed to open. That is fine, but what is the logic in allowing a person to buy a pot from a garden centre but not from a local hardware shop? We understand that shops in tourist areas will be allowed to open. There will be considerable resentment in Banbury if shops in Stratford-upon-Avon are allowed to open on Sundays to attract tourists but shops in Banbury are not.
I understand that shops involved in leisure and recreational activities will be allowed to open on Sundays. Does that mean that clothing shops will be allowed to sell leisurewear on Sundays but not formal suits and that chemists will be allowed to sell sunglasses and suntan lotion but not other items to people who want to go on the beaches?
With all due respect to my hon. Friend, I suggest that the Bill will simply replace one set of anomalies with another. That is not the way forward to resolve what I think all hon. Members agree is a ridiculous piece of legislation. I suggest that the best way forward still is total deregulation, with adequate and proper safeguards for those who may be employed on Sundays.
I do not intend to take up time by dividing the House, but I believe that those points had to be made. If other hon. Members wish to divide the House, that is their right.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will bear in mind what I have said.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):

The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 25.

Division No174]
[4.05 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Key, Robert


Alton, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Ashdown, Paddy
Latham, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Meadowcroft, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Benyon, William
Mudd, David


Best, Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Bevan, David Gilroy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Rathbone, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Sayeed, Jonathan


Burt, Alistair
Shersby, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Conway, Derek
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Dorrell, Stephen
Stokes, John


Fry, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gale, Roger
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
 
Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thornton, Malcolm


Gower, Sir Raymond
Trotter, Neville


Grant, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, R.


Greenway, Harry
Wallace, James


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Wigley, Dafydd


Harris, David



Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sir Adam Butler and Mr. Patrick Thompson.


Hunter, Andrew





NOES


Ashby, David
Norris, Steven


Baldry, Tony
Osborn, Sir John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Portillo, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Skinner, Dennis


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Stern, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Thurnham, Peter


Forth, Eric
Wood, Timothy


Freud, Clement
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hayes, J.



Hicks, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Greg Knight.


Jones, Robert (Herts W)



McCrindle, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Mr. W. Benyon, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Adam Butler, Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Raymond Gower, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Sir Kenneth Lewis, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Sir Peter Mills and Sir William van Straubenzee.

SHOPS (No. 2)

Mr. Ivor: Stanbrook accordingly presented a Bill to reform the law relating to Sunday trading and to amend the Shops Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6 June, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

Mr. Bob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Division bells are not working in Dean's Yard, which I believe is the most remote point for offices of hon.


Members from the Division Lobbies. Therefore, it has become impossible for some of us to know whether a Division is taking place and we are likely to miss any Divisions that take place today, or until the bells are working.

Mr. Speaker: I shall have the matter looked into and ensure that the Division bells are working later this evening.

Nuclear Energy

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to this important debate on civil nuclear matters, I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I must also announce to the House that no fewer than 35 right hon. and hon. Members have already indicated their wish to take part in the debate. Therefore, I propose to have a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock. I appreciate that than: may mean that some Privy Councillors will be caught in that 10-minute limit, but I am sure that they will accept that is fair to all concerned.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the steps taken by the Government to keep the House and the public informed of the consequences for the United Kingdom of the accident at the nuclear plant at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; endorses the Government's commitment to the safety of the complete nuclear fuel cycle in the United Kingdom; and in that context approves the Government's first stage response on 2nd May to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste (House of Commons Paper No. 191), setting out as it does the principles against which current proposals to dispose of low-level radioactive waste can be considered.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that you have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and I shall refer to that later. You have not selected the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment and I do not criticise that at all. None the less, I agree with the terms of his amendment, which makes it clear that there is no intention in holding this debate today that it will any way pre-empt a full response to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste management. That will be given full consideration in due course.
I should like to begin by giving a report on the latest position in the United Kingdom, arising out of the Chernobyl accident. But first I express on behalf of the whole House our sorrow to hear of the deaths of more Russian citizens as a result of this accident, and the continuing grave illness of others.
The House will know from my statement of 6 May that as soon as news of the accident was received, the standing arrangements for monitoring were stepped up. The remnants of the cloud arrived over the United Kingdom on Friday 2 May. Since then a daily bulletin has been issued to the press, giving the results of the monitoring in non-technical language. We have also made available all the raw data on which the bulletins were based. The bulletins were issued first by the National Radiological Protection Board, working closely with officials of my Department and other Departments concerned, and from Tuesday 6 May by my Department and the Scottish Office. At all times, including the long weekend of 3 to 5 May, Ministers were kept closely informed of developments, and I was in touch with colleagues.
Radioactivity has been measured in the air, in water, in milk and on foodstuffs. From Monday 5 May to Saturday 10 May, the Government advised people to avoid drinking fresh rain-water over long periods. Apart from that, levels of radioactivity at no time, and in no place,


approached the levels at which special action needs to be considered. Those levels are well below the levels at which action has to be taken.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Several of my constituents have asked what is the difference between rain-water taken from tanks outside one's house and consumed there and then and the same rain-water when it falls in reservoirs and enters our normal water supplies.

Mr. Baker: Rain-water that is caught in a can and used for drinking is in a much more concentrated form than when it falls into a reservoir or falls on to the ground and is diluted.
I was referring to the levels at which special action has to be taken. For instance, the maximum level of radiation found in milk was 471 becquerels per litre. That compares to 2,000 becquerels per litre, which is the level at which action ought to be considered.
The highest levels recorded as a result of the cloud occurred over the weekend of 3 to 5 May. Since then levels have been falling every day, and are now either at or approaching normal background levels in all parts of the country.
I can confirm that no special precautions are needed. I repeat what I said to the House last week. It is safe to drink milk. It is safe to drink tap-water. It is not necessary to take iodine tablets. In particular—as we have received many questions on the point—I can confirm that no special precautions are necessary in giving fresh milk to infants and pregnant women.
My Department and the Scottish Office will continue to issue regular bulletins so long as they are needed. As long as there are no further discharges from Chernobyl, the incident may be regarded as over for this country by the end of the week, although its traces will remain.
The extensive and regular monitoring confirms the very low level of exposure of United Kingdom citizens. That is not unexpected, given the distance from the Ukraine and the dispersal and dilution that occurred en route. It is nevertheless right that those arrangements were set in hand as soon as the news of the accident was received. The House would not have expected otherwise.
I now refer to the wider consequences of Chernobyl. Chernobyl will have a profound effect on public opinion and on the assessment of nuclear power not just by scientists or Governments, but by ordinary people in this country who vividly have been brought face to face with the possible consequences of a nuclear accident. It has underlined the heavy responsibilities that go with nuclear power. I should like to draw some lessons from it.
First, nuclear accidents do not respect national boundaries. Each country with a nuclear programme has a responsibility to ensure that it is regulated properly and safely. It also has a responsibility to ensure that if something does go wrong, information is passed to and, where necessary, help is sought rapidly from other countries. The agreement reached at the Tokyo economic summit to recommend that an international convention be drawn up, which will commit the parties to report and exchange information in the event of nuclear emergencies, it to be welcomed.
Secondly, what should be our response as politicians in a free and open democracy? Trust has to be built. It is no good scientists or politicians simply asserting in a

Panglossian way that everything is all right with nuclear power. The case must be reargued with complete openness. The only way of maintaining that confidence is to show that every individual brick in the edifice is sound.
Even the most extreme opponent of the industry should be prepared to accept, provided it can achieve the standards of safety he demands, that nuclear electricity provides secure supplies and some environmental advantages. On the other hand, the most passionate supporter of the industry should accept that if a serious accident does occur, results are far more serious than in most other industries. The stakes, both of potential benefit and cost, are high, which is why such passions surround the industry.

Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the concern that the Secretary of State has just expressed, can he explain why the authorities in Scotland are going ahead with putting fuel into the new advanced gas-cooled reactor station at Torness in my constituency, apparently several months before it was originally planned, and years before there is any need to commission new nuclear generating capacity in this country?

Mr. Baker: I shall refer to the nuclear industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will wind up the debate, and I think that he will be able to deal with that specific point. I shall deal with the central issue about nuclear power.
The Government continue to believe that, subject as it is to the most stringent safeguards, nuclear generation has an essential contribution to make to the provision of electric power. We have to remember that by the end of the century 78 per cent. of electricity in France will be generated by nuclear power. In Germany, it is expected to be approaching 45 per cent. That compares with about 18 per cent. in the United Kingdom at present. Those two countries are not likely to halt or reverse their nuclear programmes, because neither has over-abundant supplies of fossil fuels. Nuclear electricity will give their industries a competitive edge. Already, French electricity is the cheapest in Europe. However, having said that, and going back to the benefits and costs, I wish to re-emphasise the fact that safety is the key issue. Safety must be the supreme consideration, particularly in design, in operation and in disposal.
I have just set out the Government's view on nuclear power. I hope that my shadow, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), will be able to set out the definitive Labour party position on nuclear power and go a little further than in his interview on Radio 4 this morning. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is in his place to hammer home his own support. When it comes to the Labour party sorting itself out on nuclear power, I can only recall the words of a former leader of the Labour party commenting on supposed Tory disarray:
I do not want to intrude into private grief.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment.
A third lesson of the Chernobyl accident is that openness is also a necessary condition, not only because it is right in itself, but because every now and then some outside critic will be right about something. Openness is


not a public relations technique; it is part of the process of the critical analysis that we need. We are already far more open than we have to be—

Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.

Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment.
We are already far more open than we have to be, but where public safety and assurance are involved, improvements must always be looked for. The Secretary of State for the Environment is one of the regulators and guarantors of the public interest. He has to be vigilant and must take a critical and probing approach to safety. He has to be sure that no undue risk is taken.
The nuclear industry in the United Kingdom is the most regulated industry in the country, subject to no fewer than 15 acts of Parliament and sets of regulations; and in England to the scrutiny of the nuclear installations inspectorate, the radiochemical inspectorate and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with parallel arrangements in Scotland and Wales.
If an incident should occur, there are clear guidelines on what should be reported and how such incidents should be handled. The guidelines were explained to the House by the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on 26 July 1982.

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Baker: I should like to finish this passage, and then I shall give way.
Reports are required as quickly as possible—normally within 24 hours. All incidents involving death, serious injury, substantial over-exposure to radiation or a release of radioactivity that requires special action to be taken are reported to Ministers under those arrangements. They are also reported to local liaison committees and the local population, as well as to the work force. All reports to Ministers are published each quarter by the Health and Safety Executive. The most recent report, dated 3 April, referred to three incidents in the fourth quarter of 1985. None of them involved any radiological hazard.
In addition to those formal reporting arrangements, there are agreed interdepartmental arrangements for other incidents to be reported to the authorising Departments—in England, my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Both those Departments have inspectorates whose job it is to monitor operations and ensure that the terms of the authorisations for discharge or disposal of waste are being complied with. In the course of that work they receive a good deal of information about day-to-day operations, including details of minor incidents—many of them quite trivial. The incident at Dungeness A power station on 1 April, which The Observer reported, was of that type. The amount of radioactivity discharged was tiny—no more than hospital incinerators are allowed to discharge every day without special authorisation.
With regard to such minor incidents, I have given instructions within my Department that Ministers should be told of all incidents involving the release of radioactivity, however small, so that we can decide whether they are sufficiently important to be made public. That should make it unnecessary to introduce any changes

to the formal reporting arrangements. However, we are quite willing to look at the arrangements to see whether any changes might be helpful.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is much concern about the safety of pressurised water reactors, especially in the light of the Three Mile Island disaster? Whatever the Secretary of State may say, all Opposition Members are united in the belief that the building of PWRs should not go ahead. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he is in favour of the PWR programme going ahead? If so, is he in favour of it going ahead before the next general election?

Mr. Baker: We are awaiting the report from Sir Frank Layfield on that matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and I have a quasi-judicial position in the inquiries. The Government have made their position clear on their commitment to the PWR programme

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. On the issue of openness, he has been careful to avoid saying anything about the application of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to certain aspects of civil nuclear power. Is not the application of that Act one aspect that prevents openness and proper debate?
On the specific incident at Dungeness, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, does he recognise that his Administration changed the rules which had been introduced by the previous Labour Government? The Labour Government insisted that such incidents had to be reported to Ministers and regulatory bodies and also had to be reported publicly. It is essential that the public and the press should have the right to this information, not just Ministers and regulating bodies, which may then decide whether the public should be informed. Frankly, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many incidents of a minor nature in nuclear installations. I hesitate to use the word "trivial", but they are of a minor nature. As I have announced in relation to these incidents, they will be reported to Ministers within my Department—[Interruption.] I would like to proceed on this matter one stage at a time.
The local inspector in my Department received the information about the incident at Dungeness. He decided that it was of such a minor nature that he did not report it back. I do not criticise my official for making that judgment. I believe that he made the correct decision. On the other hand, it is right that Ministers should be told, so that they can make an assessment.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: I should like to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Copeland before I give way.
The hon. Member for Copeland asked whether the supply of information should go beyond Ministers. I am prepared and willing to consider the publication of all these minor incidents. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some are very minor indeed, and we must decide whether all these incidents need to be reported. I shall be guided by an attitude and predilection to be open in these matters, because that is the best way.

Mr. Benn: rose—

Mr. Baker: I have ensured that the serious incidents that we know about are automatically made public when they occur. If there is a general feeling, as a result of this debate, that these incidents should be made open and published—and we must remember that many of these incidents are very minor—I shall respond to that reaction.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding in that genuine manner and for opening this point for debate.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, these incidents are trivial, there is all the more reason for not keeping them quiet. Has not the keeping quiet of the Dungeness incident resulted in it covering seven front page columns of a major national newspaper? The impression was created that the authorities did not want to disclose the fact that the accident had occurred. Does the Secretary of State agree that that example is simply playing into the hands of those people who may want to exaggerate or exploit the nature of these matters?

Mr. Baker: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments, and that is why I have decided to make the change. As I have said, I am prepared to make information about incidents available, if the House wishes. When that was done in the past, many trivial incidents were reported. However, if the House wishes to have details about each incident, there is no reason why it should not.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Secretary of State consider extending the publication of these incidents into all areas in which radioactivity is released into the air, including hospitals?

Mr. Baker: There are, of course, more than 5,000 sites where operations involving radioactivity are registered by the nuclear installations inspectorate. I accept the anxiety about these matters that hon. Members have expressed.

Mr. Tony Speller: I apologise for intervening in my right hon. Friend's speech. However, I entirely accept his arguments about the regulation and control of nuclear installations in Britain. What steps does he intend to take with regard to French installations which lie beside the English Channel facing the south and southwest of England? Our controls may be perfect, but I am not sure that controls are perfect elsewhere.

Mr. Baker: There is a treaty obligation between France and the United Kingdom for information to be exchanged on any incidents. That is important, because France has many power stations.

Mr. Benn: The Secretary of State referred to the period when I was Secretary of State for Energy. Following the leak at Windscale, which was not reported to me, I laid down that every incident, however small, should not only be reported to the Minister but should be published. This Government have changed that practice. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Is he now prepared to return to the practice of publishing every incident? The reason for that is perfectly straightforward. Some of the more serious nuclear accidents may occur through human error, and often the small examples of human error, which come out in the practice of full publication, alert people to the true nature of the risk that they may be facing.

Mr. Baker: I believe that I am right in recalling that the right hon. Gentleman made the change that he has just described. However, I understand that his Department was swamped by a large number of small and minor incidents. I believe that arrangements were made—I will check on this—for some restraint and concentration upon the major incidents. What I have announced today meets what the House wants. I have made the announcement for the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Copeland. I believe that it is better to be frank and open in these matters.
It has become clear in the past two or three weeks that generally people in this country have a considerable lack of knowledge about radiation and radioactivity. I am sure that the population has learnt a great deal in the course of the past three weeks. I am sure that, as a result of what they have learnt, they will have a more balanced understanding and assessment of the risks.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: rose—

Mr. Baker: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I must then begin to move on to consider radioactivity.

Mr. Terlezki: If, God forbid, a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl occurred in this country, would the labour force inside and outside the reactor, have some kind of protective clothing to protect them as they walk around the buildings? About an hour ago I received a message from Kiev to the effect that people are working around the reactor at Chernobyl without protective clothing. Only the police and officials are wearing protective clothing. The other people working in the Chernobyl area are prisoners.

Mr. Baker: As I have made clear this afternoon, if there is the possibility of a serious accident at a nuclear installation, that will be reported immediately to the local community and to the work force. There are arrangements and plans for dealing with such emergencies which involve the use of protective clothing.

Mr. Hardy: rose—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Baker: I have been generous in yielding to hon. Members from both sides of the House.
The Government's action on the disposal of radioactive waste is a good example of the approach which I consider is essential if there is to be a proper understanding of the issues involved.
First, let me deal with the scale of the problem of radioactive waste.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way.
The amounts of radioactive waste that we can expect to arise by the year 2000 are not large compared with the amounts of waste generated by other industries. Society nevertheless has a responsibility for their safe disposal. Indeed, if we were to close down all nuclear power stations tomorrow, we would still have to dispose of existing wastes, as well as those arising from the decommissioning.
It is not a responsibility that should be left to later generations. By the year 2000 there will be 380,000 cu m


of low level waste for disposal, and by the year 2030 1,200,000 cu I am aware that hon. Members have some difficulty in envisaging the volumes that are involved—

Mr. Neil Kinnock: A hell of a lot.

Mr. Baker: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, in a simile that he will understand, that by the year 2000 that will be equivalent to about six towers the size of the Victoria tower, and 19 towers the size of the Victoria tower by the year 2030.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
The only national site for low level waste is at Drigg in Cumbria.

Mr. Home Robertson: Why not in the Victoria tower?

Mr. Baker: I think that there would be just a slight objection to that.
Assuming that available techniques for compaction are used by 1987, and that it proves possible to develop the whole of the existing site, Drigg will be full by about 2010. Given the time needed to investigate, consult, and develop any subsequent site, it is only prudent to press ahead now as quickly as possible with the investigation of another site.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will my right hon. Friend look closely again at the figures for Drigg, including the figures for low-level waste that is supposed to go outside Drigg? As a result of answers from his Department, for which I am most grateful, it appears that, compacted in the manner which it has in mind, the total amount which needs to go outside Drigg is only one fifth of the amount which needs to go into Drigg if also compacted.

Mr. Baker: I have looked carefully into the figures and also at the effect of compaction. If compaction is started, as we hope, in 1987 in Drigg, the figures that I have announced will still stand. I shall be happy to look at them again, but I have looked at them again and again, and I am satisfied that those figures reflect the waste that society will have to dispose of.
On 2 May the Government published their response to those recommendations of the Environment Select Committee that were directly relevant to the development of a near-surface facility. In this we welcomed the Committee's conclusions that safe disposal routes were available in the United Kingdom and that indefinite storage presented unacceptable risks. We also reaffirmed our commitment to the objectives for the management of radioactive wastes set out in the White Paper, "Radioactive Waste Management", published in July 1982.
Since 1976 the previous Labour Government and our own have sought a solution to this problem. Therefore, I was rather taken aback to hear the Liberal party spokesman on this morning's "Today" radio programme say that we were rushing into this. This is a policy that the previous Labour Government and our own have been trying to resolve over 10 years based upon disposal rather than storage on site.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the Select Committee's recommendations was that there should now

be a stocktaking and assessment of the options set out in their report before a commitment is made to a specific course of action and that that is the valid criticism that can be made of the Government's present intentions, even given the fact, which I accept, that things have not moved quickly over the past 10 years?

Mr. Baker: The Select Committee also pointed out that things have not moved too quickly over the past 10 years. In recommendation 8, it said:
Near-surface disposal facilities are only acceptable for short-lived low-level wastes and must be fully engineered on a complete containment basis.
The advice that I have had subsequently from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee draws attention to the difficulties that successive Governments have had in finding a solution to the problem.
In February I published a draft of the special development order that it is proposed to lay before the House shortly to enable NIREX to investigate sites for the shallow disposal of radioactive waste in clay. As a result of the comments and views expressed, the Government have made a number of detailed changes to the order—for example, in the hours of working. They have also decided to limit the wastes to be deposited to what is broadly described as low-level waste. I shall come back to that point later.
I should emphasise that the work that would be carried out under the proposed special development order will be only the first step in the development of a near-surface facility. The planning permission will only enable NIREX to investigate the geology and hydrogeology of the four sites at Bradwell. Elstow, Fulbeck and South Killingholme. It carries no presumption that any one of the sites will ultimately be developed. It will be for NIREX, as the prospective developer, to assess the information that it gets and then decide whether it wants to make a formal planning application.
NIREX has already said that it will make the data gathered available to those with an interest, so that they can, if they wish, make their own independent assessment. I have already made it clear that any planning application will be subject to a planning inquiry under an independent inspector. We are determined that at each stage there should be maximum opportunity for consultation with those who may be affected.
I accept that it has proved particularly difficult to bridge the gap between the scientists' assessments of risks and the honestly held perceptions of the communities that could be affected. I have received representations and seen personally the Members of Parliament concerned with those four sites. I know only too well the anxieties that their communities are expressing about the proposals. Having listened to their representations, particularly on the distinction between intermediate and low-level waste, I have decided, as was made clear in our response to the Select Committee, that many people will be reassured if a near-surface facility is used only for low-level waste.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: This directly affects my constituency. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that the principal issue in the debate about the disposal of nuclear waste is not so much safety, which is the matter to which he has directed his comments, as public confidence. Until such time as public confidence can be restored to this area, it is unacceptable to expect


communities affected by the disposal sites to be subjected to any sort of investigation, least of all a proposal to dispose of low-level waste. Much more damage will be done to the nuclear industry if these proposals go forward before such fears are allayed.

Mr. Baker: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulty, but we have a duty as a society to deal responsibly with the disposal of radioactive waste. That arises and will continue to arise. As I have said, it would arise even if one were to stop nuclear generation, which I think would be the wrong policy for Britain. Over the past 10 years—I emphasise that that covers two previous Governments—we have tried to find a way to deal with nuclear waste safely. I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the point made by the Select Committee, that it is possible to engineer safe disposal shallow repositories. There is one in north France. My hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government has visited that site, and I hope to do so later in the year. The site in France is being managed in a safe way. However, I agree there is a great deal of anxiety, and that must be allayed.
Many people are not aware of the type of low-level waste that arises. Some of it is surplus equipment from laboratories and hospitals, equipment from the nuclear power plants and other industries where radioactive operations take place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) will draw to his constituent's attention the various reports that have been made available by NIREX and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.
I wish to deal with the difference between intermediate and low-level waste. I hope that my hon. Friends who will be affected will recognise that the Government have made a major concession on this matter. In the light of the views expressed by the Environment Committee—which also made the point regarding what was suitable for a near-surface facility—the Government have decided that NIREX should proceed on the basis that a near-surface facility will be authorised only for the disposal of what is broadly described as low-level waste.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: May I take the Minister back to his comments about high-level waste? Is it not time that the Government, and especially the right hon. Gentleman, should have much more confidence in the advice given by nuclear engineers and scientists? Now is the time to take a decision about the fast breeder programme, which is the most effective method of minimising the programme for the disposal of radioactive waste. The decisions about the year 2000 must be taken. If that is done, we will then take the responsibility from future generations. They will be able to handle a manageable method of disposal. If the Government take a decision to go ahead with the fast breeder programme, we will be in the same position as the French.

Mr. Baker: I am not sure how widely that view will be supported on the Opposition Benches. I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has made a point which will be developed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Atkinson: Do not try to make a party political point. Take the matter seriously.

Mr. Baker: I am not trying to make a party political point. This is an important matter, and we cannot be faulted for wishing to proceed with it.
Short-lived and long-lived intermediate-level waste will, therefore, be stored, pending the identification and development of a deep disposal site or until radioactivity has reduced sufficiently for its disposal, as low-level waste. The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Matthews, has endorsed this approach. The nuclear industry, in its interim response to the Environment Committee, published on 9 May, has made it clear that it does not see any strong technical economic or operational objections to this.
I want to assure my hon. Friends and the House that the facility will be designed and constructed to strict radiological criteria. It will have to meet strict standards of containment. Unsuitable wastes will be excluded. The proposals will also have to meet the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 concerning the interests and the safety of workers and the public.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend is dealing with the conditions that will be imposed and the conditions which the inspector at the public inquiry will be asked to consider. Will the inspector at the public inquiry also be asked to consider the desirability of other methods of disposing of this waste?

Mr. Baker: We have decided and the Select Committee has recommended—this has received the support of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee—that it is perfectly safe to dispose of low-level waste in shallow depositories. That recommendation has caused an enormous amount of debate. The proposals that we are putting forward are designed to deal with that debate.
Intermediate-level waste will require deep disposal, either in a mineshaft or under the sea. The Swedes have an under-sea disposal site, which I hope to visit later this year and to study the nature of the wastes. The volume of low-level waste is substantial and significant. We believe that the way to proceed is for the shallow disposal of low-level wastes in clay.
I re-emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that safety is paramount not only in the operation of nuclear installations but in the disposal of radioactive waste. We cannot afford to be careless in any way, shape or form.
The Government remain committed to the safe development of nuclear power and the disposal of all radioactive waste. The Government have taken and will continue to take the necessary steps to achieve this objective. I invite the House to support the motion on the Order Paper.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add
'believes that safety. health and environmental protection must be of paramount importance in the operation of the civil nuclear power industry; deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to inform effectively the British people of the nature, level and implications of the radioactive fallout caused by the Chernobyl accident; condemns the Government's failure to develop acceptable, comprehensive policies for the necessary storage and monitoring of nuclear waste: recognises the need for an urgent and comprehensive safety review of Britain's existing


nuclear power stations; believes that such a review should be published, and debated by Parliament; and consequently demands that whilst these matters remain unresolved Her Majesty's Government should not proceed with any expansion of civil nuclear power.'.
I join the Secretary of State for the Environment in expressing, on behalf of the Labour party, our sympathy and regret at the loss of life and the continued toll of injury and illness caused in the Ukraine as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. In view of what the Secretary of State had to say about Divisions, we wait with interest to see whether the Government's Chief Whip is able to shepherd all his flock into the Lobby with the Government tonight and indeed, if the Chief Whip is able to work up the courage to go into the Lobby after them.
Britain was among the first nations of the world to develop nuclear power to generate electricity. For more than 30 years, that development has proceeded, based on British research and engineering. Methods of scrutiny and public control have developed parallel to the development of the industry. The nuclear industry, from the outset publicly owned and subject to close Government supervision, now produces about 18 per cent. of our electricity. Those employed in the industry are all members of the appropriate trade unions.
The industry has been the object of much piecemeal inquiry and has suffered from regular changes of policy. There is now, and has been, a lack of any coherent strategy. There has been a specific failure to develop an acceptable national policy for the storage and monitoring of nuclear waste. The policy on discharges into the environment has also been unacceptable.
Although those responsible for managing the industry cannot escape their responsibility for failure or errors, it is, above all, the ineffective nature of a framework of Government policy which lies at the centre of the present difficulties. There has been no coherent or comprehensive review of the overall progress and impact of civil nuclear power in Britain. It is remarkable to reflect on that. It is time that we had such a review.
In the past 16 years, I have dealt with many issues on behalf of my constituents, such as health, environmental protection, safety to communities, secrecy and discharges into the environment. I have learned a great deal about the industry. But I am conscious of the fact that there is a massive job still to be done in this country if we are ever to persuade people that the industry has a sustainable future.
The level of misunderstanding between those responsible for running the industry and the public is appalling. It has been continually bedevilled by secrecy, obfuscation, the deliberate withholding of information that the public has a legitimate right to receive, and the workings of the Official Secrets Act. What shook me above all, especially in view of recent controversies, was to receive a letter a few days ago from a lady who was protesting about nuclear waste management policy. She concluded:
After all Dr. Cunningham you wouldn't have it in your constituency would you?
Recent events in the British nuclear industry and the appalling failure of technology at Chernobyl underline what many of us already knew: we need new political techniques to deal with technologies such as nuclear power. The experience of the past three weeks has starkly demonstrated that we also need new international agreements. The development of nuclear power has begun

to outstrip public acceptance and understanding of what it involves, and without public acceptance of its operation there can be no future for the civil nuclear industry.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Have the events of the past three weeks made the hon. Gentleman change his view, as expressed in various journals last month, that in principle it is right for Britain and his party to continue with the nuclear policy participated in and developed by him when in government?

Dr. Cunningham: It is no secret that I have always believed that civil nuclear power has a legitimate role in any rational energy policy. Unlike the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, I shall not pretend to be all things to all people. I have already mentioned the essential requirements of openness, frankness and explicit information on such matters. It may be argued that the British industry has an outstanding safety record. However, that alone is not enough. By its very nature, nuclear power embodies hazards that are intangible and invisible. Radiation has no smell. It makes no noise. It has no colour. It does not rattle. It frightens people. and we must recognise that from the outset.
It is essential that the safety, health and environment of our people should be safeguarded by standards of scrutiny and oversight that are set far higher than for any other industry. We live in a world where nuclear power generates 15 per cent. of all electricity used. In some countries, including our neighbour France, the figure is between 50 and 70 per cent. At the end of last year there were 374 nuclear reactors in operation in 26 countries throughout the world. During 1985, 31 new reactors were brought into production. Construction on six more was commenced. Even in America new reactors have been commissioned, and the recently published United States energy policy review envisages 30 new reactors in the United States in the next decade.
It is important for people to realise that very close to us now, much closer than Sellafield or Dounreay, the French have a massive commitment to civil nuclear power in light water stations at Flamanville, Palluel. Pentlys and Gravelines. On one site alone, at Gravelines on the other side of the Channel, the French have more generating capacity than we have in the whole of England. That is the reality, and it will not change in the short or medium term. Thus, it is futile to pretend that Britain can isolate itself, industrially, environmentally, economically or in energy policy terms, from that reality.
No major industrial nation has decided to abandon nuclear power altogether. For those reasons, we consider it essential that the British Government should use all means available to secure international application of the highest known safety standards and management systems, and that they should urgently seek a review—I believe that the Minister touched on this—of the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and other relevant international bodies involved in the monitoring and control of civil nuclear power. We welcome the Government's commitment to such initiatives.
Britain, uniquely among major industrial nations. is for the present self-sufficient in energy resources. We already have an operating margin of almost 100 per cent. in electricity generating capacity. We thus have time to consider carefully the complex issues involved and to plan for the future. We say unequivocally in the Labour party


that the major factor involved in that planning should be an enhanced role for the British coal industry. That is why in the prevailing circumstances we see no case for proceeding with any expansion of civil nuclear power—no PWR at Sizewell or on any other site.
Today, the House is asked to approve the Government's actions in response to fallout in Britain from the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine. We cannot do so for several reasons. Although it was clear for several days that Britain might be affected by radioactive fallout, Ministers seemed totally unprepared for it when it actually came. A single Minister, effectively briefed, with a central unit should, from the outset, have been placed in charge of the announcement of explicit and coherent information to the people. The exact nature, levels and implications of the contamination should have been published from the beginning. That simply was not done. Even after the matter was first raised from this Dispatch Box, Ministers dithered. The Government's response was wholly inadequate to deal with genuine, predictable and justifiable anxieties. The information provided and the manner of its release served only to heighten confusion and to exacerbate concern.
Why, for example, were public notices not published in newspapers, which would have been by far the most effective way of getting accurate information quickly to people? Do the Government recognise that the consequences of the Chernobyl fallout for Britain were significant, and that statements such as, "It could not happen here," were totally misleading? It was important to achieve a balance between frankness about the situation and the need to calm unnecessary fears, but here again the balance was wrong. Statements from Ministers were in conflict with statements from the director of the National Radiological Protection Board, again confusing the media as well as the public, and thus sabotaging, before it could begin, the effective dissemination of accurate information.
We saw the Government incapable of responding satisfactorily to an emergency. We believe that there is a need to review comprehensively existing procedures and contingency plans for dealing with such incidents. Nor, I must emphasise, do we support self-righteous attacks on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union should be more open about the nature and scale of the accident, but the "holier than thou" approach of some people in the British Government—and, even worse, the attitude of the American Government—did nothing to help or to encourage the Soviet Union to be more open and forthcoming; indeed, they probably had the opposite effect.
We also have an opportunity today to debate the Government's first response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment on radioactive waste. The report is most welcome as an authoritative statement of radioactive waste management policy in Britain. Given the wider welcome that it has received, not least from the Secretary of State for the Environment today, I suspect that the Secretary of State for Energy must bitterly regret his immediate destructive and critical comments about the report and what it had to say to the House and to the country.
The Select Committee is right to be highly critical of Government policy and the lack of a coherent research strategy for the storage of nuclear waste. In particular, I

welcome the recommendations on eliminating radioactive discharges to the marine environment, on the Drigg low-level waste site, on the need for research of deep geological sites, and on an end to unnecessary secrecy in the industry—all issues that for many years people in my constituency, the local authorities, trade unions and I myself have been urging on successive Governments at Westminster. The Select Committee is right to highlight the need for a better management performance in the industry and for better public information. We accept too the proposal for an economic reappraisal of the THORP project and believe that the necessary work on such a study should be commenced immediately.
The report of the Select Committee has been widely welcomed and commended by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, by the Central Electricity Generating Board, by British Nuclear Fuels plc and by environmental groups. The Select Committee makes clear the need to develop new policies for the storage and disposal of all nuclear waste. A decade ago the Royal Commission on environmental pollution highlighted the necessity for such policies. We accept the national need for a land-based site to take low-level radioactive waste generated in the nuclear industry, in the Health Service, in non-nuclear industry, in universities and in research establishments. The Government are right to accept the important recommendation that only low-level waste should be dealt with in that way.

Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being forthright and forthcoming about where he stands, on behalf of his party, on this important issue. My constituents need to be absolutely clear on where all political parties stand on the disposal of low level waste. May I get it critically clear? By what he has just said, does the hon. Gentleman accept, as I do not, and if he were Secretary of State for the Environment would he approve, a near-surface disposal facility, such as has been recommended by NIREX?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes is the answer to that. We have such a facility in my constituency now, as I assume the hon. Gentleman knows. The site at Drigg will not serve the country indefinitely. Anyone who believes that the problem can be ducked is not only deluding himself but is misleading his constituents. If we had no nuclear industry tomorrow, such a site would still be necessary to deal with waste from the Health Service, from research laboratories, from universities and from non-nuclear industry, as I have already made clear. Lest the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt, I have written to constituency Labour parties which have approached me on the issue, making that absolutely clear to them. The national requirement for such policies should not be ducked by anyone who has pretensions to be a serious political representative in the House.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Minister give way? [Laughter.] Quite a few of us have been affected by last Thursday's events, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the point he was making, what does the hon. Gentleman say of the morality of hon. Members who are enthusiastic about civil nuclear power but who, when it comes to their constituencies, as we have seen with at least four Conservative Members, think that the waste and the danger should be taken somewhere else?

Dr. Cunningham: It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman that I share his views about the double standards inherent in such an approach. As I recall, all Conservative Members have supported the Government in their aggressive atitude on the development of civil nuclear power in Britain—an attitude, incidentally, which is of no consequence in reality, because the Government have not ordered even one nuclear power station in their seven years in office. Like much else about the Government's policy, their actions totally belie their rhetoric. That is the reality.
We cannot accept that a special development order procedure should be used to circumvent the proper involvement and legitimate interests of local authorities and the communities they represent. The Select Committee concluded, and we agree, that publicly "acceptable solutions are possible for the storage and disposal of waste in Britain, as they are in other countries. I remind the Government, however, that their own studies show that the disposal of low-level waste in a retrievable form adds little to the overall cost. That should be a feature of policy for near-surface disposal. The Select Committee makes clear the extent to which Britain lags behind Germany, Sweden, the United States of America and France in policies for radioactive waste storage and disposal. This is a serious failure of Government policy.
Little progress has been made over the last seven years. In one major respect we have gone backwards. The Government made a major error when in 1981 they abandoned a development research programme initiated by the Labour Government for the disposal of high-level waste. The Government took that decision against the advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and of the industry. The advisory committee has repeated its criticism of the decision recently in letters to Ministers. The current position in Britain is a direct consequence of that failure of Government policy.
Intermediate-level waste and highly active waste, when vitrified, should he stored and monitored in deep-mined facilities specially developed for the purpose. The proposal of the Select Committee that an experimental site be developed to test proposals, but not to be used for the actual disposal, is worthy of serious consideration. The environmental aspects of Magnox fuel reprocessing are dealt with in the report. Some people argue that reprocessing should end.
We cannot deal with the different problems of environmental protection simply by deciding to close industries. Nor should Socialists accept that we can protect the environment by undermining the economic and social well-being of our communities. I have long argued that discharges from Sellafield should be eliminated. The recently announced new controls are welcome, and the much-improved performance of the industry on discharges is long overdue, but a target date for the elimination of discharges into the sea should be set by the Government.

Mr. Lyell: On lower and intermediate levels of waste such as those placed at Drigg, is the hon. Gentleman content with the broad structure of the facility at Drigg, which drains through to the sea? Does he envisage that being updated? If so, would he still have a fail-safe drainage to the sea?

Dr. Cunningham: No. I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have been anything but content with

facilities at Drigg for some time. I am sure that he is aware that an announcement was made several months ago to upgrade the facility at Drigg—a decision that was long overdue. I emphasise that, even with the compacting of waste, the site at Drigg has a finite life and we cannot continue indefinitely cramming more and more waste and radioactive material into it.
I was discussing the reprocessing of Magnox fuel. About 2,000 tonnes of Magnox fuel from British programmes await reprocessing. During the next few years, about 1,000 tonnes per annum will result from Britain's Magnox stations. BNFL is contracted to deal with the material on behalf of British generating boards. Any necessary decommissioning of aging Magnox power stations will add significantly to those totals. In those circumstances, suggestions that early closure of the plant is desirable or possible are frequently misleading
Dry storage is not a better alternative, even if it were possible. Nor would public opinion readily welcome or accept a proliferation of stores for highly radioactive, long-lived nuclear fuel elements around the country. There is now deep public concern in Britain about nuclear power, waste disposal, siting of reactors and accidents. It is unlikely that people would accept that we should further complicate the position by dispersing more and more radioactive fuel around the country. Surely even this Government have learnt that we urgently need a freedom of information Act to ensure the fullest possible and best-informed debate. Those aspects of the Official Secrets Act applying to civil nuclear power should be removed. I reiterate the Labour party's commitment to that action.
We also require the urgent completion of Magnox safety reviews and the publication of the relevant documents. We remain committed to a ban on sea dumping of radioactive waste. The Labour party supports proposals for the inclusion of local authority members, trade unionists and environmentalists on the boards of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and NIREX.
I emphasise that we remain totally opposed to the construction of a pressurised water reactor. We are immediately committed to halting the production of weapons grade material in British civil nuclear power stations or, for that matter, in any other facility. Labour opposes the introduction of the fast reactor and emphasises the need for a full public inquiry into the proposed reprocessing plant at Dounreay.
We should ensure that the nuclear installations inspectorate is strengthened and that control of the nuclear industry and all the bodies which oversee it is examined and, where possible, rationalised.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: After reading the evidence in other reports, I, too, oppose the idea of the British development of the PWR system, but that is not to rubbish the report that we expect this autumn from Professor Bill Hall, who is one of our most reputable nuclear engineers. Professor Hall, who is the excellent engineering assessor attached to Layfield, will write the report on PWR. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has dismissed the report without seeing it. He is not only criminalising British nuclear engineers, but rubbishing the people who have put much work into PWR development. On the basis of other reports, I agree that we should not


go ahead with it, but my hon. Friend should say that he has every respect for the engineering work that has been done by Professor Bill Hall.
Secondly, I am—[Interruption.] I am talking about Professor Bill Hall's reputation as a leading nuclear engineer. Let us not treat engineers in that way. That is the reason why we are in our present position, with trivia coming out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Interventions must be brief. There is great pressure in this debate.

Dr. Cunningham: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but I have not rubbished in advance the Layfield report; indeed, I have not even mentioned it. What I have said—I said it at the beginning of my speech and I repeat it now—is that, in present circumstances, we envisage no requirement to order civil nuclear power stations. I shall read the Layfield report with much interest, as will my hon. Friend.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does that mean that the next Labour Government will order no more nuclear power stations?

Dr. Cunningham: In case there is any misunderstanding, I shall repeat what I said. We envisage no case for ordering any nuclear power stations in the prevailing circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] At the risk of lengthening my speech unnecessarily, I should deal with the mirth of members of a party which, when in government, did not order one nuclear power station for nearly 25 years. The joke is a little misplaced. In the present circumstances of energy self-sufficiency, the strength of the British coal industry and grave public uncertainty about the nuclear industry and all its operations, I cannot understand why Conservative Members should suddenly be worried about a nuclear order.

Mr. John Hannam: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?

Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way. I am nearing the end of my speech. I have given way generously to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Single-issue campaigners can and often do ignore inconvenient complexities. We cannot do so, nor can we in modern industrial societies regard technology as unthinkable. The Labour party does not espouse the zero economic growth views of some environmentalists. We believe that improved international economic performance is a vital necessity for millions of people facing poverty, malnutrition and disease. The reality is that we must learn to deal not only with the existing technologies but with the developing momentum of new technologies, new scientific discoveries, that are coming at us literally from all over the world.
In his excellent and widely praised work "The Ascent of Man", Jacob Bronowski wrote at the conclusion something which is very apposite to the present circumstances:
We are all afraid—for our confidence, for the future, for the world. That is the nature of human imagination. Yet every people, every civilisation, has gone forward because of its engagement with what it has set itself to do. The personal

commitment of a man or a women to their children, the intellectual commitment and the emotional commitment working together as one has made the ascent of man.
In dealing with these complex and controversial issues, we should bear those words in mind.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I recognise that, because of the widespread concern caused by the disaster in Russia. it has been necessary to widen the debate beyond a consideration of the interim response by the Government to those parts of the report on radioactive waste by the Select Committee on the Environment that are relevant to the development of near-surface facilities for the disposal of radioactive waste.
Although the amendments that were tabled in my name to protect the position of the Committee have not been accepted, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for his assurance that the motion does not pre-empt a considered reply and discussion of those parts of the report that remain unanswered, in particular the vital questions that we have raised concerning the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels.
In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, I shall seek to confine my remarks to the Committee's report and the Government response. However, I cannot let this moment pass without expressing a personal deep feeling of sympathy, which I am sure is shared by Members in all parts of the House, for those individual Russian men, women and children who are directly facing the horrifying consequence of the nuclear failure at Chernobyl. It is something that we do not wish to see happen again anywhere in the world, and above all not in our country.
When harnessing the forces of nature for its own benefit, mankind has always placed itself at risk. If there is carelessness, if accidents happen, human tragedy inevitably follows. In the handling of the energies of the atom, the significance lies in the magnitude of the possible catastrophe and the lasting effects, possibly for generations. It is this thought that underlines the report of the Committee. If the greatest possible care is not taken in handling the waste products of nuclear energy, these could pollute the human environment and place succeeding generations at risk for literally thousands of years.
Our recommendations underline the need for the strictest possible classification of waste in accordance with its radioactive and toxic qualities, and the actual disposal route of all radioactive waste must then follow according to its classification. Thus, a main recommendation is that near-surface disposal facilities should be used only for low-level waste, with a half-life of 30 years or less, containing no alpha-bearing particles, and particularly no toxic radionuclides. If this classification is followed and there is the strictest monitoring and sorting of waste before disposal, the Committee sees no risk in near-surface depositories that are properly engineered for maximum containment.
This is particularly relevant to the four sites chosen by NIREX for exploratory purposes. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the Committee's recommendation that near-surface facilities should not be used for intermediate-level waste, even though the industry itself


and its scientists are of the view that short-lived intermediate-level waste is safe in properly engineered depositories.
However, as hon. Members will have heard, from the county councils of Bedfordshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire—

Sir Bernard Braine: And Essex.

Sir Hugh Rossi: And Essex: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend—there will be continuing and deep local opposition to the use of any particular site for disposal purposes, and this opposition is bound to be supported by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in those areas.
All this is perfectly understandable. In the course of its studies the Committee identified what we have chosen to call the NIMBY syndrome—the "not in my back yard" argument—which runs, "It may be necessary to put the stuff somewhere, but here is not the place to do it." I think that it will be difficult to find any locality where the inhabitants will say, "By all means dump your muck in my backyard—we recognise that it is for the national good." Altruism rarely overturns self-interest to that extent. I believe that the situation would arise whatever kind of waste was to be dumped in a locality which has not accustomed to being a depository for waste.
The natural reluctance to accept radioactive waste is latched on to by those who would prefer no nuclear energy to be produced in this country. They may be the coal interests, the oil interests or those genuinely fearful of the consequences and risks to the human environment. They will do the best that they can to encourage local opposition as part of their campaign against the use of nuclear power.
The continuance of the use of nuclear power was not the issue before the Select Committee, as energy policy lies outside its remit. We were concerned—and this was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—by the fact that even if all nuclear power stations were ordered to cease operation forthwith there would be the neeecl to decommission about 34 reactors, with all their ancillary buildings, equipment and facilities. In addition, there are substantial quantities of waste accumulated over 40 years, which still require disposal. A safe place has to be found for all this. Ultimately geology—rock and subsoil formation—must determine where this will be. The overriding consideration is the possibility of maximum containment and the absence of permeating water that can carry dangerous matter one knows not where.
Undoubtedly those communities living in geological areas suitable for radioactive waste disposal will feel aggrieved. They will be asked to accept something that they do not want or like in the national interest. It was the Committee's view that such communities should be compensated by the nation as a whole for the disadvantages that they will suffer in their environment, and possibly even in the values of their properties. Precedents exist for this in the Land Compensation Act 1973, the underlying policy of which I advocated strongly many years ago.
Under that Act, those whose houses are affected by public works, such as new motorway constructions, receive home-loss payments, grants for double glazing and some financial compensation for the loss that they have

suffered. The concept is inherent in section 52 agreements under the planning Acts, which I advocated also many years ago. Under the agreements, developers make some provision for the benefit of the local community. such as providing new infrastructure, in return for planning permission. These are concepts which should be built upon and extended, espcially when we are dealing with such a publicly sensitive matter as radioactive waste.
I am a little disappointed that the Government have not been more forthcoming on he question of compensation. They have merely said that they are giving the matter serious consideration. They would stand substantially more chance of carrying public opinion with them if they were seen to be anxious to produce safe systems and to be fair and, indeed, generous to those who may be disadvantaged as a result of these operations. They might even save money in the long term, by having somewhat shorter public inquiries with fewer objectors.
Public anxiety cannot be dismissed in any circumstances, and the Government must do everything to allay it. In its report, the Select Committee was critical of some of the past attitudes of the nuclear industry. It is understandable for scientists and for professionals generally to assume that others understand what they themselves regard as everyday knowledge and with which they are working the whole time.They are assured and satisfied in their own minds that what they are doing is acceptable and safe, but they have failed to communicate that knowledge in an understandable form to the public at large in order to make them realise that perhaps humanity can benefit from the use of nuclear power and that these enormous energies can be harnessed safely. We must show that we are using systems that are absolutely safe. That must be demonstrated.
A number of questions remain unanswered. It has been said, probably with some justification, that it is not possible to put into effect the Select Committee's recommendation on the absolute exclusion of alpha-bearing waste. Nothing is said about toxic radionuclides, which we feel present as great a danger as alpha-hearing particles. There should be monitoring and exclusion if low-level waste is to be put into near-surface depositories, and it would be useful to know the Government's thoughts on the classification of such waste. Their response is silent on this issue.
The Select Committee was extremely impressed by the work that it saw in other countries in both the compaction and pyrolysis of low-level waste, which is the incineration of waste in the absence of air. Industry in Britain was non-commital when we asked it whether these methods were to be used, or should be used, in this country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an encouraging statement this afternoon and has said that compaction is to be used in 1987. It is vital that every means possible within our technology to reduce the volume of low-level waste is introduced so that the amount of land required for its disposal is correspondingly reduced and all the difficulties that may otherwise arise in a number of localities throughout the country can thereby be avoided.
The industry is issuing separate responses to the Select Committee's report, and these are coming in thick and fast. We have had responses from the CEGB. and UKAEA, the SSEB, BNFL and NIREX, and all appear to welcome many aspects of the report, especially our recommendation on what we call the Rolls-Royce


approach. The Government do not seem to have made much reference to this recommendation. Basically, it implies that every expense must be incurred and the latest technology used to produce facilities that are completely up to date—not holes in the ground, like Drigg—for the engineered containment of waste, and the public must see that this is being done. It is only in this way that reassurance can be given to the public that the Government are concerned about their safety.
The industry appears to have accepted the philosophy that containment, rather than dilute and disperse, is important. This seems to be something of a shift in its philosophy. Are the Government entirely in accord with the concept of containment, rather than that of dilute and disperse? Do they welcome it as quite a dramatic shift in emphasis as a consequence of my Committee's report?
I wish to express my thanks to the Government and the Opposition for the warm welcome that they have given to my Committee's report. I thank all outside commentators who, without exception, have regarded the report as a serious contribution to knowledge in this sector. The report marks the conclusion of about nine months' hard work. I wish to extend my thanks to all the members of my Committee. I thank them for their extremely hard work in supporting the production of a unanimous report. I thank also our specialist advisers, Dr. John Mather of the National Environment Research Council, and Mr. Walter Patterson, for their invaluable help and advice throughout. Last but not least, my thanks go to Mr. Clive Bennett and other Committee Clerks, who coped cheerfully with the burdens placed upon them and without whose help it would not have been possible to produce the report.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is a wide-ranging subject and in the brief time available to me I shall concentrate on some key issues relating to the future of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. In the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, I must say that I warned at the time of the publication of the report that there was likely to be what I described as a green backlash against the further development of nuclear power. The Chernobyl disaster has intensified and accelerated that reaction.
A number of concerns have been raised, to which the Government must respond during the debate, report on in future and bring back to the House. A clear concern of the Select Committee was nuclear waste disposal. Our view over a number of years has been that the nuclear industry, despite the fact that it has had substantial backing over a long period, and, on its own admission, no commercial constraints placed upon it, has not been able to come up with acceptable ways of disposing of nuclear waste. That fact in itself has been enough to justify my party's view that there should be no further expansion of the nuclear power programme while the problem remains unresolved. If the House agreed that we should not proceed with the use of nuclear power, we might find some means of making progress towards disposing of the waste that has so far been created.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: We are all most anxious to discover the policy of the alliance about the future of

nuclear power, but perhaps we are not quite so anxious as my constituents because the National Nuclear Corporation, which exists only to design nuclear power stations, employs more than 1,200 people in my constituency and another 600 people close by. Furthermore, 3,000 to 4,000 people are employed by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Risley. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the alliance candidate in my constituency will endorse the policy that he is now espousing, or does he think that, with the usual gutless opportunism which is the hallmark of his party, she might find a way out of the difficulty?

Mr. Bruce: I am inclined to treat that intervention with the contempt that it deserves, but I appreciate that the industry is important to the people who are employed in it and that it is vital to our future. Its environmental impact is also important. We have to look at the wider issue of the principles involved. If coal miners and others can be retrained, so can scientists. They can be redirected into other areas of research—a point that I intend to deal with, if I am allowed to proceed with my speech.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No.
We are opposed to Sizewell—we believe that it is unjustified—and we have consistently opposed Torness. We have reached the stage where we should begin to decomission the older Magnox stations which are reaching the end of their useful life. The point has already been made that, even if we wanted to do so, there is no possibility of stopping the nuclear industry in its tracks overnight. The problems involved in decomissioning and disposing of high-level nuclear waste would intensify our immediate problems. We cannot deal with those problems all at once: we can only start that process. It seems to the alliance that we should begin that process by saying that we should not continue to build nuclear power stations.
My second point relates to the Government's motion. In our view, it is complacent. The Government's reaction to the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster does not accord with the terms of their motion. The public have been confused, and in some cases public confidence has been damaged by the Government's utterances. People in my constituency have told me that they have no confidence in the Government's assurances. The Government could not even get the telephone number right when they announced that they were setting up a hot line. The Scottish Office had to correct a press statement about the radiation levels that had been announced. Understandably, people were concerned when they were told that they could drink milk but not rain-water. That was explained subsequently, but it was not explained at the time of the announcement.
Radiation levels may not have been dramatically above normal and they were within the safety limits. However, given our limited knowledge, people are entitled to ask what are safe limits, especially as the standards that we apply are different from those that have been applied by other countries. They are taking more stringent precautions. It is not surprising, therefore, that the public lack confidence in the Government's response to the disaster. There was ample warning of the drift of the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl, yet it appears that the Government were not adequately prepared in advance.


They were unable to inform the public about what they needed to know when the cloud from Chernobyl finally arrived.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman knows that this motion deals with the disposal of nuclear waste. He has not yet told us about the Liberal party's policy on the disposal of nuclear waste. Does he favour the disposal, in a near-surface facility, of low-level nuclear waste, to which recommendation the Liberal party's Chief Whip put his name? Did the Chief Whip vote with the authority of the Liberal party on that matter?

Mr. Bruce: My understanding is that my hon. Friend did not do so.

Mr. Hogg: Oh yes he did.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend sought to amend the report to make it stronger than it is. I have already said that this country and local authorities will not make progress in dealing with this problem until there is a responsible Government who say, "We are not prepared to expand the nuclear industry until we can deal with disposal."

Mr. Hogg: Answer the question.

Mr. Bruce: The answer is no.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: No, I will not. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Bruce.

Mr. Bruce: I am speaking in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as energy spokesman for my party, and I am stating my party's policy. My hon. Friend, the Chief Whip, is capable of speaking for himself. If he wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way.

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to refer him to the amendment that I moved to paragraph 60. It was one of many amendments. If they will read the words of that amendment, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) will realise that we asked for the deletion of the words:
we are convinced that safe final disposal routes are available in the United Kingdom.
That amendment was supported by both Conservative and Labour Members. That amendment showed that we are opposed to the disposal of either intermediate or low-level waste on any site in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The statement by the Liberal party's Chief Whip is not accurate. The two relevant paragraphs are 74 and 99—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a matter for debate. It is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Bruce.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be interested to know how the Government Chief Whip manages to reconcile his position on nuclear waste with that of the Government. At least the position that we are adopting is consistent. [Interruption.] That is most certainly the case. Nobody in my party proposes the building of new nuclear power stations, but we all agree that provision must be made for the disposal of nuclear waste. The position that we adopt is consistent but the Government's position is dishonest. For a member of the Cabinet to adopt such a position is fundamentally unacceptable.
The public have no confidence in the Government's reaction to the drift of radiation from Chernobyl to the United Kingdom. The chaos and confusion in the Government have caused real concern.
That brings me to another point: whether Britain would be able to cope with a major radiation leak from a British nuclear installation, especially in view of the United Kingdom's population density. When he replies to the debate, will the Secretary of State for Energy tell the House whether measures are in hand to provide uncontaminated water to the population of the United Kingdom in the event of a major radiation leak? 'The House may be interested to know that at the weekend I 'was in Orkney. I was advised that there were no iodine tablets in the islands, although it is just across the Pentland firth from Dounreay. If there were an accident at Dounreay, one wonders how the islanders would be expected to react.
The Government, and others, give assurances about Britain's high safety standards and record. I do not doubt either the sincerity or the competence of our nuclear power scientists and engineers, but at the end of the day McPherson's law applies. That is, McPherson's piece always lands jeelly-side doon. That means that if something is likely to go wrong, it will. Two weeks ago the Chernobyl disaster demonstrated that the scale and character of a nuclear disaster is quite different from any other kind of disaster. If the objectives of the nuclear industry were fulfilled, we could be talking about risks of that kind from more than 80 nuclear installations in the United Kingdom.
As for the general debate on nuclear power, the proponents of nuclear power point out that it is economic and clean. Both of those factors are open to dispute. The full cost of nuclear power has not been met by the electricity industry. Much of it has been defence funded and the costs of decomissioning and waste disposal, although they have been taken into account, are likely to be much more substantial. Many of the stations that have been built have been running below capacity and have not therefore been run at full temperature.
The argument that the French have abundant cheap nuclear power is only French Government policy, not an economic fact. The capital is not being repaid: electricity in France is not viable in any proper economic sense. I understand that there is a capital debt of £20 billion, on which it is managing to pay only the interest.
We must question the cleanliness of nuclear power because of the problems of reprocessing and waste disposal. It is all very well for assurances to be given about Sellafield, Trawsfynydd, Hinkley Point and Dungeness B, and to say, as the Secretary of State did, that incidents had been a minor, not a major, threat to safety. The question in the minds of the public is that if there have been minor incidents—and there have been more than enough of them during the past 30 years—there is a risk of a major incident eventually.
It is said that nuclear power is essential because alternatives will soon run out and that they are environmentally less acceptable and politically vulnerable. On the political front, the expensive and damaging miners' strikes that have been a feature of recent Governments, especially Tory Governments, are essentially the consequence of the confrontation politics of the Labour and Tory parties when in government or in opposition. The alliance is determined to bring that to an end—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. In any case, the


argument rather falls down because if we retain the fuel flexibility and then the power workers strike, we are in deep trouble.
The Liberal party believes that investment in energy efficiency, improvements to the environmental acceptability and the efficiency of coal and oil, coupled with the development of alternatives, could meet all our energy needs and would allow for the gradual changeover to a non-nuclear energy mix. That is attainable in the United Kingdom.
Renewable energy resources have not had the investment from which nuclear power has benefited. Indeed, Britain has just cut its wave research programme, just as the Norwegians are expanding theirs. We strongly believe that the greatest alternative energy resource—the "fifth fuel"—has the advantage of being cheap and environmentally sound. It is called conservation. A crash programme of energy efficiency over a decade could substantially reduce the need to build any new type of power station. At the same time, we could divert the funds for nuclear power into research to deal with the nuclear waste problem—which we accept must be dealt with—and into alternative renewable energy resources, such as geothermal, wind, biomass and tidal.
Because of our other resources, because of the alternatives that we can develop and because of the substantial scope for energy efficiency, this country is not under pressure and has the time to develop a viable, non-nuclear energy policy that would provide the flexibility that we need at an acceptable cost, with minimum environmental risk and maximum public acceptability. That is the course that should be followed. Any responsible British Government would pursue that course.

Sir Bernard Braine: We should not have been surprised by the Chernobyl disaster. I do not mean simply that the Soviet reactor was of a design that would never have been approved in the West, but that the Soviet system itself is inherently inefficient and incapable of letting its own people, let alone its neighbours, understand what is happening. Information is the lifeblood of democracy; it can spell death to a dictatorship.
However, it would be facile to think that the Soviets are alone in maintaining an atmosphere of secrecy about technological risks or in camouflaging awkward issues. There is nothing new in secretive attitudes, even in our country. It took me 10 years to obtain a public inquiry into excessive concentrations of liquefied gas, chemicals and oil in and around my constituency. In 1974 I had to make a speech that was the longest from the Back Benches for 146 years in order to focus attention on the plight of my constituents. We got a public inquiry which came down on our side, but it took another seven years before there was a reduction in the volume of risk for the people of Canvey Island.
Our free society did not prevent the Aberfan disaster in 1966, although all those concerned with the control of that death-dealing tip, which cost the lives of 116 children and 28 adults, knew the risks, but failed to see what might happen and to take avoiding action. Our free society did not prevent the managerial stupidity in 1974 which led to

the blowing up of the newest chemical plant in Europe, at Flixborough, which killed 29 workers and injured 40 others.
The truth is that even without Chernobyl our nuclear industry would have had to address itself to the question how to convince the public that its plants and procedures are inherently safe. Given the fact that the industry, both here and in the West generally, has been relatively troublefree—for example, during the past 10 years there have been a regrettable 399 deaths in the pits, while there have been only nine in the nuclear industry, none of which was due to radiation—and given the fact that it does not compare in any way with the atmospheric pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels or the manufacture of chemicals, the task would seem to the layman to be easy.
In other Western countries there does not appear to be anything like the fuss and bother that there is in this country. We have already been reminded in the debate that France has built 40 power stations without any clamour from its people. By last year it was producing 60 per cent. of its electricity requirements from nuclear plants, which is the highest percentage in the world. It is especially significant that the French are able to export cheap electricity and to give their own industry a billion-pound advantage over ours.
In this country there is a difference—an underlying anxiety. There is no ducking that issue. A revealing passage in paragraph 220 of the report refers to a study of a nuclear energy exhibition, on which £50,000 of public money had been spent. It states:
the people who went into the exhibition were slightly more worried than average, but when they came out they were even more worried.
That does not appear to me to be the right sort of public relations. Why cannot the facts be presented in a way that enables a balanced judgment to be made? The report correctly states that the industry must make positive efforts to give as much information as possible to the public. In the end, however, the Committee considered that
the industry's actions alone will convince the public, not its words. The disorder of the Sellafield site, the crudeness of Drigg, the remoteness of NIREX: these have created far more damage than any amount of facts and figures and public relations work will ever repair.
Those are harsh words, but in a democracy there cannot be a nuclear industry without public acceptance. That is really what the debate is all about, and it underlines the importance of the criticism that I must make about the extraordinary behaviour of the industry, and of NIREX in particular, over the disposal of nuclear waste, which has left the public living in the areas likely to be affected both suspicious and fearful.
Consider the business of finding repositories for what is described as intermediate—as though that was not dangerous, which is not really the case—and low-level nuclear waste. The industry's agent, NIREX, produced criteria for such disposal. It said that there must be regard to population density, to accessibility to conservation and to geology. That is excellent, and exactly what we would expect, but the site chosen at Bradwell in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and not far from my constituency does not satisfy a single one of those criteria.
Bradwell is close to areas of rapid population growth in both north-east and south-east Essex. It is not served by a railway, and existing roads are wholly inadequate to take 128 movements a week. On the other hand, believe it or


not, it is in an area designated as an important international site of special scientific interest. For full measure, the site is in an area which is historically vulnerable to sea flooding. If that is not enough, it lies adjacent to a fault line which has seen four earthquakes since the 17th century. The epicentre of the last earthquake in 1884, which killed people, was only four miles away.
Those who selected this site for investigation did so before consulting Essex county council, which could have told them the facts. If they had come to me, I could have told them the facts. I am soaked in the history of my county. I love my county. I know about it. If they had asked anybody who knows anything about Essex, they would have been told the facts. How they could select that site for investigation, and how they will ever convince anyone that they knew what they were doing baffles me.
It is true that, since I made those revelations in the debate on 13 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that intermediate-level nuclear waste will not be buried at Bradwell or at any of the other sites. I should think not. If NIREX had any sense, it would abandon the proposal altogether. If it is committed to following this particular path, I am in favour of a full public inquiry as soon as possible, and I predict that it will reduce confidence in the industry, not enhance it. That is the foolishness of the step that has been taken without proper consultation, reconnaissance and research.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is present to reply to the debate, because my next point concerns him. In the debate on 13 March I complained on behalf of Essex county council and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip that a request by the council for details of the borings carried out before the erection of the Bradwell nuclear power station, which is adjacent to the site chosen for the storage of waste, had not been met. Hon. Members will appreciate the relevance of having that information. I demanded that the details should be given. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment agreed.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has only one minute.

Sir Bernard Braine: In April I received an undated letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who said:
I am happy to say that CEGB have advised me that they have now sent to Essex County Council, via Nirex UK Ltd., copies of cross-sections of boreholes made for the foundations of Bradwell Power Station.
This morning that information had still not been received. That is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

Mr. Michael Foot: Such large questions have been raised during the debate by right hon. and hon. Members that I hope the Government will arrange an early time when we can have a much longer, fuller debate. Obviously, a whole range of hon. Members from different sides with different points of view wish to participate.
The more one listens to the speeches from both sides, the more one realises that they underline the importance of the sentence in the Opposition's amendment which states that the House

recognises the need for an urgent and comprehensive safety review of Britain's existing nuclear power stations.
The amendment insists that no further steps should be taken to expand the industry before that happens. That, surely, is essential. In the light of recent events it is utterly deplorable for the Government to ask the House to vote against that amendment tonight.
I speak as a long-term supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and I have always thought that it is both possible and wise to draw a distinction between nuclear production for military purposes and its production for peaceful purposes. I have always thought that that is desirable, in the paramount interest of stopping the nuclear arms race. However, some recent events, particularly the tragic event in the Soviet Union, alter the picture. From the reports of the scientific correspondent of the Financial Times—I think that he must be telling the truth—it appears that both military and civilian production is carried out at Chernobyl. I do not doubt that that also applies in many other places, and that should be taken into account.
When the appalling tragedy at Chernobyl first happened, there was a tendency in some quarters for some people to attribute it to the unique wickedness of the Soviet Union, rather than to the unique peril of nuclear development, which is where the world should have concentrated its attention and energies. However, as the days have passed and the information has become clearer. even the Minister in today's debate has adopted a different tone. That is an advance.
Even before Chernobyl, events were developing in such a way that the House and the country were beginning to look at the matter differently. That arose partly because Conservative Members were prepared to put their shaky seats at risk, which underlined the fact that they would not accept at face value the assurances given by Ministers and others about the absolute safety of the proposals. Indeed, we have moved rapidly since then.
Ministers and the general public often tend to misapprehend science. At one moment they treat scientific evidence almost as if it were absolutely believable, and the next as if it were absolutely unbelievable. There is a balance between the two, which we need if we are to have a sensible policy. The Government, in their rejection of some parts of the Committee's recommendations, and in many other ways, have failed to understand the deepening fears and anxieties of the public on these matters, and to reflect them in this short debate.
I was impressed, as I think many others were, by Yorkshire Television's pictures, which appeared shortly before Christmas, showing the new estimates of the danger of cancer and leukemia in areas with nuclear plants. I shall not go into the details now, as I wish to say much in a short time. Anyone who looks at the letters which I sent to the Prime Minister, and which were available for publication, although she did not choose to publish them, and at the details in The Lancet on 14 February, which showed that there was a greater danger in some of those areas, particularly for children aged under four, will see that the figures seem to illustrate and almost to prove that. I demanded that that matter should be part of the inquiry. and I demand that it should be part of the major inquiry for which the Opposition are calling now.
An even more alarming aspect of the whole matter has been revealed in the developments of the past few days, particularly in response to what happened in the Soviet Union. One of the most important accounts to emerge in


the following days—it has not appeared much in the British press, and, indeed, it has not been fully published in Washington—is a report to which Senator John Glenn referred. His views should not be dismissed, as he is an authority on many of these questions. Within a few days of knowing of the disaster and the overwhelming tragedy in the Soviet Union, he ensured that a much fuller account of the report in which he and others were engaged should be made public to the world.
That report showed that nuclear power plants in 14 countries had experienced 151 significant nuclear safety incidents since 1971.
What this means,
said another Senator in the Committee,
is that accidents are occurring out there but that these countries have been lucky so far, just like the Russians were lucky until now and like we've been lucky.
Britain has also been lucky, but the luck broke for one of the great powers engaged in nuclear production.
The report went on to describe what will develop if no proper international control is exerted. It said that 306
nuclear power plants are operating in the world with a total of 3,100 reactor-years of experience.
Another 224 reactors are under construction or on order. While the rate of new construction has slowed in much of the industrial world, it is rising in the less-developed countries.
Can we not understand what the perils are for the world as a whole if that plan proceeds? The way in which the radiation has crossed frontiers in the past two weeks should impress upon us how much danger there is.
Much of the dissemination of this knowledge is taking place in defiance of treaties that have already been agreed, according to Senator Glenn, who has every right to be respected on such matters. He correctly claims that the Reagan Administration
had not abided by a provision of the nuclear non-proliferation pact of 1978 that requires the Government to work closely with countries that buy US-made reactors to ensure safety.
Along with the measures in the Opposition's amendment there must be far greater exertion on the international front than the Government have shown any understanding of, or any willingness to undertake. It is extremely difficult for a Government who have not shown the slightest interest in a comprehensive test ban or in taking international measures in any other sectors to try to control the dissemination of such knowledge, to turn round and say that we must now embark on a full international programme. However, nothing but that can save the world in these circumstances.
In the history of mankind there has never been such a display of cosmic arrogance as these super-powers have displayed—often, I am sad to say, with the eager compliance of Her Majesty's Government and Ministers, who show no understanding of this matter. The other countries which are under threat from such nuclear production have a right to be heard, and it is high time that our Government responded to what they are saying.

Mr. Michael Brown: Following the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I take up his theme about public opinion. He is right to say that at the moment there is no public confidence in the state of the nuclear industry. I came to this issue nearly a year ago when my constituency was first threatened,

through a rumour which, in spite of denials and counter-denials, turned out to be true. I recognise that it is incumbent on any hon. Member who takes the stance that I have taken on this issue to accept that, if the proposal to dispose of low-level nuclear waste in a near-surface facility is unacceptable for his constituency, by definition it follows, if he is to accept the injunction from the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, that he also acknowledges that it is not an appropriate facility in any other constituency. I fully accept that I have to address that responsibility.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was frank when I asked where his party stands on this issue. My constituents are listening closely to the debate, which I suspect will be relayed later this afternoon and tomorrow through the air waves. I must address my attention to the question of what to do with the nuclear waste and to the future of nuclear power.
I am not in a position to pass a vote of confidence or no confidence in the nuclear power industry or its expansion. However, I know that we cannot pursue a nuclear policy without consent. Plainly, there is no consent for the expansion of the nuclear industry. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy does not believe that, I invite him to come to my constituency and share a platform with me. He will find, wherever I go and whatever the political opinion of those whom I am addressing, that there is no consent for an expansion of the nuclear power industry. It is plainly wrong, until there has been a national debate or an opportunity for pause and reflection and until the Government are able to take public opinion with them and reassure it, to go ahead with expansion. I accept that my stance towards the Government's nuclear policy requires me to deal truthfully and openly with the House and my constituents.
I deal, first, with nuclear waste disposal. I acknowledge that nuclear waste is produced, and will continue to be produced, from nuclear power, whatever policy this or any other Government may take. I am assisted in addressing the problem of what to do with nuclear waste by the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which posed alternatives. It took evidence from organisations, which suggested alternatives, such as the method proposed by ENSEC Ltd for intermediate radioactive waste disposal and the pipeline operated waste energy disposal method. The Select Committee's report was scathing about the Government's scant regard to those alternatives.
The Select Committee, in paragraph 99, states:
Considerably greater emphasis must be given in research, development and policy to sea-bed options, especially to the use of tunnels under the sea-bed from land.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has disposed of the question of intermediate-level waste for these four facilities. I am grateful to him for that, but if he thought that he could buy my support and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) or of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), he is mistaken. All that has happened is that they, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who have been marvellous in the support that they have given to me in this campaign, have felt their attitudes harden. We and the general public whom we represent


recognise that, having won a victory and made the case on political grounds against the scientists about intermediate-level waste, we need not stop at that. Why should the politicians who represent those areas not also succeed on political grounds against a shallow burial facility for low-level waste?
My constituency—I am sure that I speak for the other three constituencies involved—is not in the business of dividing and ruling and putting the burden on somebody else. I would not want to put any hon. Member through what I have had to contend with during the past year. The Government must recognise that there is no public consent for the disposal of nuclear waste on land in a shallow burial facility. The sooner they face that reality, the sooner they will be able to buy public confidence in their nuclear policy. I must confess that even I did not fully recognise—although I had a good idea—how much the feelings of my constituents, whatever their political party, had matured following the announcement of the proposed nuclear waste site. The Government, whom I support, ignore that lack of public confidence at their peril.
Many hon. Members, except those who have had to address this subject—for example, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who represents people working in the nuclear industry and those hon. Members who face the threat of nuclear waste disposal in their constituencies—are not sufficiently aware of the depth and strength of public feeling. Until the public's feelings are acknowledged, the Government will not succeed in purchasing public confidence, even if they try to do so via compensation. We need public consent.
I reiterate the commitment that I made on 21 February this year—it is in the Offical Report and is immutable—that, so long as I am the Member of Parliament for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I shall resist totally the idea of disposing of nuclear waste of any kind in my constituency.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I am passionately opposed to the existence of nuclear weapons, but I equally passionately support the idea of nuclear power. I am anti-nuclear weapons and pro-nuclear power. As a Socialist, I believe that there are profound, powerful social arguments in support of the development of nuclear power.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent should relate the fears that he has rightly expressed to his beloved India, of which he is a dear friend. India cannot survive the future in the absence of nuclear power. People talk about massive catastrophes in engineering development. Has my right hon. Friend forgotten what happened in 1979, when 15,000 Indians were killed when a dam burst in Gujarat? Most British newspapers did not mention that calamity. The Socialist alternative for Indians is not to build dams of that sort, but to build an industry which they can understand and can harness to meet their needs and achieve development. As a Socialist, I remind the House that a Socialist advance will occur only in times of affluence, not in times of poverty. The emergence of a Socialist society in Britain will come from affluence, not from poverty. We cannot have affluence in Britain in the absence of a nuclear power industry.
Imaginative ideas on what will happen in the next 20, 30 or 40 years have been pitched in to support the development of the nuclear power industry. Lord

Marshall, once the head of our nuclear industry, may have gone, but I say in his absence that the most important quality of genius is humility. He should not forget that, because the nuclear power industry's attitude to society generally has become arrogant. Aggressive conceit is a weakness of leadership, and Lord Marshall should remember that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to 150 significant incidents. We have all become obsessed with price comparisons. That is the very weakness of the industry. people involved in the nuclear industry work under great pressure to design safe reactors within cost constraints. Practically every one of those 150 significant incidents has been reported. The reports by the International Atomic Energy' Agency—including the report on Three Mile Island—bear out the fact that the problem lies with the quality of mechanical engineering. None of those incidents has been the result of a nuclear failure or a lack of nuclear understanding. They have all resulted from inadequate mechanical engineering or inadequate metallurgy. I have no doubt that Chernobyl will prove to be the result of inadequate mechanical engineering or inadequate metallurgy.
We should be designing reactors according to a belt-and-braces philosophy. What is good enough for Rolls-Royce is good enough for the nuclear industry. Rolls-Royce provides dual brake systems and dual injection pumps and, indeed, most reactors are designed with two of everything. However, further precautions are needed to ensure engineering quality. Nuclear engineers talk about the loss of coolants and so on, as being responsible for weaknesses in their plants. We should ensure, for example, that both the valves and the pumps used in nuclear plants are of much better quality. Superb pumps are included in the PWR equipment of nuclear submarines—those damnable things under the sea's surface which the House should decide today to abolish—and we should recognise the beauty and the quality of their design and use them as a basis for civil construction.
Let me give another example. Britain or any other country can make concrete that will last a thousand years. If such concrete was used with stainless steel, there should be no seepage from tanks for a thousand years. I would sack the engineers who designed and constructed concrete containers that leaked. Those responsible for the concrete structures that have leaked at Sellafield, and so on, should be sacked for that sort of nonsense. There is no call to cut corners and save money in that way.
One point stands out clearly—Britain cannot have its nuclear engineering on the cheap. We should not expect or demand that. There should be ministerial directives to designers to adopt a much safer attitude, so that the simple design problems in reactors do not occur.
The Labour party is in danger of becoming an anti-science party, and we must be careful about that. We must be careful also about what we say today. Last year the Labour party's annual conference decided that the Labour party would be anti-nuclear, but the debate was confused and mixed up. It was an emotive debate; reference was made to bombs, environmentalism and the miners' strike. If it had not taken place during the miners' strike, many of the remarks that were made about the nuclear industry generally would never have been made.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the high-level waste?

Mr. Atkinson: Waste is another aspect. Instead of just demanding the safe containment of high-level waste we should deal with waste in the proper way by initiating the fast reactor programme.
I intervened earlier to talk about fast reactors, because this is the most effective way of dealing with high-level nuclear waste products. We would not have our current problems if we had pursued a policy of that sort. Some environmentalists say that they even prefer acid rain to the nuclear industry. What sort of illogical nonsense is that? Surely we should design a society which does not call upon men to go down into the bowels of the earth to dig coal and be murdered by the demands of our society. We should devote ourselves to designing safer industry in which people can work without those dangers.
The Labour party must stop itself lurching from one emotional spasm to another. It must prevent itself taking an anti-science and anti-technology attitude. The Conservative party has already shown itself to be anti-manufacturing, because it pays not only lip service but total service to the needs of the City. As a result, it has become pro-money and anti-manufacturing. It has decided, probably quite rightly, that it is possible for it to make money but not possible for it to make anything else. That is what it has said, and if that is Conservative philosophy we must not go to the opposite extreme. We, in fact, must do everything to avoid it.
The tragedy is that unfortunately the debate so far has not been about nuclear engineering or nuclear science, but about all those other things. The great danger is not some China syndrome—it is the syndrome of propaganda. That is what we must avoid. We must talk about the essential needs of our country and the rest of the world. We must move towards a manageable nuclear industry which can solve many of our problems, especially those suffered by the Third world.

Sir John Osborn: I intervene in the debate because I know that hydro-electricity and nuclear-powered electricity in other countries have given, for instance, electric steel melting and cheaper electricity than is available from coal-fired power stations. In Sheffield that is one of the causes of a high level of unemployment and destruction of an industry. I also intervene because a nuclear accident in one country now concerns the whole world.
I support the Government's motion, which deals with information on the accident at Chernobyl, safety of the complete nuclear cycle and, of course, the proposals to deal with radioactive waste. I agree with various aspects of the Opposition motion, such as safety, health and environmental protection. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment covered that.
I agree with the need for a safety review of Britain's nuclear power stations, but what about power stations elsewhere in the world? The House must look outside Britain. I would also support some aspects of the alliance motion dealing with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Layfield report.
Two weeks ago I learnt of the accident at Chernobyl, because I had flown into London without reading a newspaper, at the Institute of Energy lunch. Many leaders of the atomic energy industry were there, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I feared then that the sort of accident I had feared for some

35 years had taken place. The past two weeks have proved that. Of course public opinion has lost confidence in the nuclear energy industry, according to the opinion polls. There has been no shortage of comment from the media. There has been criticism by the greens and by the alliance, judging by the contribution of the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). It means that those who believe that a safe nuclear programme has a role to play must put their case as well.
In a few months I may find myself in a debate at a university dealing with the motion "That this house has no confidence in the nuclear energy industry." I shall he hard put to win that motion.
I came across a paper written by Walter Marshall, delivered to the International Atomic Energy Agency, on big nuclear accidents. That paper dealt with the effect of such accidents on hundreds of thousands of people. I believe that is what will happen in the Ukraine. Therefore, my sympathy goes out to those people. Walter Marshall pointed out that when a jumbo jet crashes we expect 300 to 400 deaths. If it were to crash on a crowded city, the death toll would be much higher. When we read an announcement, such as "Earthquake kills 10,000," we know that that means 10,000 people were killed instantly. An announcement, such as "Cigarette smoking killed 50,000 in 1981," would mean that the deaths occurred gradually over the year. However, if we read about a reactor accident killing 104,000, as referred to in a German report on risk, we must bear in mind that the majority of these people will suffer from leukaemia or cancer in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years' time and there will be a diminution in their lifespan. There has been experience of that in other fearful accidents.
Risks and the cost of safety are important and have to be balanced. The Soviet Union is a closed society, and it has been all the greater during this incident. I welcome the fact that nuclear scientists, especially from the International Atomic Energy Agency, have seen the disaster. Towards the end of this month the British branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be going to Moscow, led by Lord Whitelaw and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). It will include two hon. Members who have knowledge of the subject, my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr Warren). I hope that they will go with sympathy and understanding to a nation which has had to face an accident of such immensity.
The Economic Community may not have reached an agreement on the banning of food and vegetables from eastern European countries, but what will the people of the Ukraine eat now? Do they not have a need for fresh milk, fresh food and vegetables, and can they be obtained from the Soviet Union? Can the rest of the world help? I believe that the mission should go with a message of sympathy and understanding. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was recently invited to the Soviet Union. Surely he has been in touch with his opposite numbers in the last two weeks.
Because of time, I shall cut out my observations on the accident. That will have to be debated on another occasion. About 18 months ago I had drawn to my attention a book by Helen Caldicott called "Nuclear Madness". I read that book with interest because I would have found many of the statements hard to refute. Since then, I have read some of the literary criticisms of that book, making the point: how safe is safe enough?
It is interesting that costs, availability of competitive sources of energy—mainly cheap coal—and the complexity of financing the utilities means that no or few new nuclear power stations are likely to start construction in the United States until the turn of the century. Key decisions will have to be made in that country, as there will be a growing need for electrical energy.
Ten years ago, when I was a member of the European Parliament, I went to Ispra. We were all concerned with emergency core cooling. About 30 years ago I was involved in the supply and design of boron steel reactor control rods. I think that I gave this story in the House, but I could not find my record of it. I visited one of the small prototype reactors in Harwell. I discussed with the operator of what, by today's standards, would be a simple control desk the circumstances in which the rods would be used. He told me that if the level of radiation and temperature went up, he moved a switch over and the temperature and radiation would go down. I was not allowed to pursue with the operator what he would do if the temperature and radiation did not drop. That was the problem at Three Mile Island to a certain extent, and it was certainly the problem at Chernobyl. Therefore, knowledge, education and training are all important aspects of nuclear safety.
I have concentrated on the weakness of an industry that I support. Some 35 years ago I was a supplier to de Havilland at the time of the first Comet disaster. I had no doubt that the jet airliner, as has been the case, would replace the prop and turboprop in time. I have no doubt that there is a role for nuclear energy in the generation of electricity in the years to come. Nuclear energy is a feature of modern society now. France has 43 commercial reactors producing 65 per cent. of its electricity supply. Belgium's reactors produce 60 per cent., Sweden's produce 43 per cent., and Switzerland's produce 40 per cent. In Britain, we are approaching 20 per cent., with 38 commercial reactors.
I said that I was concerned about the high cost of electricity in Sheffield. If Britain's competitors using nuclear and hydro power have advantages, that is of concern to industry. The point has been raised by the chemical industry and put to the National Economic Development Office, that the high cost of electricity has made the industry and smelting uncompetitive and has decimated hopes for competitive electric steel melting in a city such as Sheffield.
There are risks in other areas. No one has talked about acid rain and sulphur dioxide. The cost of a retro refit in the British coal-fired power station programme could be high. This morning, at the Natural Environmental Research Council, I discussed the CO2 content of the atmosphere, which has gone up by 40 per cent. since the start of the industrial revolution. It could double by the middle of the next century. I have discussed with the council the effect that it could have on our climate, changing the world's meteorological patterns and, above all, melting the ice caps, which could raise the sea level by 30 m, as reported in the council's annual report. Therefore, other solutions present problems, too. Risk in all those areas must be reviewed.
The debate is about nuclear waste disposal, too. About 18 months ago the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) took part with me in a public hearing in Sweden, organised by the Council of Europe, on nuclear waste

disposal. The hon. Gentleman produced an excellent report—as rapporteur—which illustrated that every Council of Europe country has similar problems. too.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that he would not under any circumstances accept nuclear waste in his constituency. He also faced up to the fact that it was unlikely that any other hon. Member would. Unfortunately, he did not go to the length of saying, as he took that attitude, that he would be opposed to any further extension of nuclear power. I would not accept nuclear waste in my constituency, but I am opposed to the use of nuclear power.
I agree that the action of the Russians in hiding the scope of the Chernobyl disaster in the early days was reprehensible. There was a good deal of Russian-bashing for the sake of it, although it is interesting that, after a couple of days, even from America there was an attempt to play it all down because the Americans had cottoned on to the fact that if they went too far in thumping the accident and the dangerous results that could follow, it would rebound on the nuclear industry all round the world.
Comfortable and self-satisfied statements were rnade in the House that the standards in the Russian nuclear power station would not be acceptable in the United Kingdom. That may be so. I was surprised at what the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said. He terrified me more than ever by his description of present nuclear power stations in this country. I had accepted in good faith that, although they could not be 100 per cent. proof against an accident, they had not been designed by Heath Robinson. However, it appeared from the hon. Gentleman's comments that they had been slapped together by somebody who did not know much about it.
The point is that those power stations are human artefacts. No matter how good the material and careful the design, one cannot guard against human error and metal fatigue. There is a story that, although the gauges at the Russian power station at Chernobyl had been showing that there was a malfunction, the man on duty was asleep. That story has not been confirmed, but it shows what can happen. All the warnings could be activated, yet the human being concerned might be otherwise occupied or fail to take account of them.
People have said, or implied, that such an accident cannot happen here. When they say that, there are echoes from 1912, when people were assured that the Titanic was unsinkable. It could happen here, wherever there is such an atomic plant.
It is not true that British standards are the highest in the world. I am used to hon. Members saying that our police force is the finest in the world, our Civil Service is the finest in the world, and our system of justice is the finest in the world. Those claims may be true, but those who say that do not know it any more than I do, because they have never made a comparative study of all the other systems. Such people fall into line and say that the British have safety standards that the Russians would never dream of, but it now turns out that the West Germans and the USA have more stringent safeguards than we have.
One of the standard defences of the nuclear power industry and its apologists is that more deaths have


occurred in the mining industry. That is both factually correct and totally misleading. If men are killed in a mining accident, it is a tragedy for the individuals and their families. People are sympathetic and sorry that such accidents occur, but they do not affect anyone else. It is different when there is an accident in a nuclear power plant. Would anyone equate the six deaths at Chernobyl with six deaths in a mining accident? Of course not.
The number of power plants in France was mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn). It is right that there is nothing much we can do about that. France may have no alternative, but that is not so in the United Kingdom, certainly not in Scotland. We still have plenty of fossil fuels. The amounts spent by the Government on alternative sources of energy has been derisory.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
People say: what about all the jobs in the nuclear power industry? I can tell them that 2,000 jobs have been created in Denmark in research and development on, and the manufacture of, wind power systems. Therefore, one cannot say that if the nuclear industry goes, all those jobs are lost.
In Scotland, there is now an inquiry at Dounreay. As that hearing is under way, I shall not say anything about it, although a sub judice rule does not operate. I say only this. If a country that calls itself "Great" Britain is going to look for an income from laundering dirty radioactive waste from Japan and other countries, what a prospect that is for the future.
Torness is due to go ahead, with indecent haste. The Government say that we need the power for industry. The Government, who have removed industry, are saying that. If we do not need power for industry in Scotland, it is as a result of their actions. There is less need than ever. If Torness comes on stream, we shall be 100 per cent. in excess of our needs. Why must it continue?
I should like to conclude by quoting The Times in 1980. Sir Kelvin Spencer, who was chief scientist at the Ministry of Power in the 1950s and who helped to launch Britain's nuclear power programme, was reported as saying that
increased knowledge of the dangers had forced him to change his mind over the issue. The hazards were too terrifying".
Sir Kelvin's message, which I repeat, was:
Drop it. Mankind cannot handle it".

Mr. Douglas Hogg: In the 10 minutes that are permitted to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me if I confine myself to one aspect of the debate. I wish to consider what we can do with the byproducts of the nuclear age.
In late February this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that Fulbeck in my constituency was to be one of the four designated sites where explorations were to be carried out for nuclear waste disposal. Since that time, opposition to the proposals by NIREX has been total and absolute. I want to make it utterly clear that my constituents and I are, remain and will be wholly opposed to any suggestion that nuclear waste of any kind or quality should be brought into

my constituency. My main, prime, overriding and paramount objective is to persuade the Government to change their policy.
I urge the Government to make it a matter of policy that all nuclear waste should be put into some deep facility. Everything that I have to say now, that I have said in the past and that I will say in future, must be set against that main policy objective. We do not want any quality of nuclear waste in Fulbeck. We do not believe that shallow repositories should be used for the disposal of nuclear waste.
Before I expand on my general theme, I should like to consider the Government's response. In addition to our general opposition to the NIREX proposals, we have been seeking specific changes. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have moved their policy in some part. The most important concession that the Government have made is that the only nuclear waste for disposal in near-surface facilities will be of a low-level quality. That is an important concession. However, I want to make it plain that that concession is not sufficient. It will not defuse local opposition. We will build on the concessions that we have obtained: we will not rest on those concessions.
I should like to note three points about concessions. First, NIREX has introduced a limited compensation scheme for compensating property owners. That is not enough. We want more and we do not regard what NIREX has done as anything like sufficient.
Secondly, if there should be a public inquiry, we believe that public authorities, the Government or NIREX should fund the objectors who are obliged to state their arguments at the public inquiry.
Finally, and perhaps most important, we believe that very stringent conditions must be imposed, not merely on the classification of nuclear waste, but on its packaging, identification and monitoring. I trust that the Government response to those points will not be silence. I should very much regret such a response.
In a sense, these are secondary issues. I should like to return to my main objective. I want to persuade the House and the Government to change their policy on these matters. I recognise that that will be difficult. In a clear and unequivocal statement made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Labour party has revealed that it is committed to supporting the disposal of nuclear waste in near-surface facilities. I intervened in the speech made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Liberal party spokesman on energy. There would appear to be some discord on these matters between the Liberal party Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Liverpool. Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and his hon. Friend the Liberal party energy spokesman.
I should now like to consider persuasion. We must recognise that there are other methods of disposing of nuclear waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) listed these in detail. Dr. Wheeler and ENSEC have described the oil-related technologies. The Germans advocate the deep-mined approach and the Swedish Government are following the "tunnel under the sea" policy. These technologies exist for all classes of nuclear waste, both intermediate and low-level.
These methods are not simply theoretical. A common theme applies to all methods of disposal—one method must be adopted for the disposal of intermediate-level


waste. It is absolutely clear that intermediate-level nuclear waste must be put into a deep facility. We are pressing for an enlargement of that concept and a recognition that all qualities of nuclear waste should go into one facility and not into two.
Arguments of cost, volume and urgency are made against that proposal. On analysis, these arguments do not stand up. Where does the urgency exist? The Select Committee report made it clear that, by pursuing policies of incineration, compaction and proper discretion, the site at Drigg could be extended for some time. The same argument applies to volume. The argument for cost does not stand up, because we are considering marginal cost. The Government are committed to two sites. I believe that there should be one site. The marginal costs are small and, in any event. is that cost not a price that we will have to pay?
I would ask the House to consider two matters. Can any hon. Member guarantee that the disposal site will be safe? Of course, it will probably be safe. The solid material will be inside steel drums and placed in engineered containers surrounded by clay. Yes, it will probably be safe, but who will guarantee that it will be safe? What would happen if the steel failed or if there were problems with the clay? What if there were some mishap in the handling or transport of the waste? What if there were a combination of all these things? If these things happened, who would dare say that additional expenditure was not necessary?
Never before has the nuclear industry been as vulnerable as it is today. It would take very little to turn the public wholly against the nuclear industry. It is against that background that I ask for a change of policy. I want all quality of nuclear waste to be put into a deep facility.
Perhaps hon. Members would care to bear in mind this final point. I am not asking of hon. Members anything that they would not ask of me if our positions were reversed.

Mr. Frank Cook: We have heard several expressions of sympathy for the Soviet peoples tonight, and I associate myself with such comments. However, I remind the House that when we make reference to Chernobyl, we do not make reference to a Russian problem. In fact, we make reference to a global problem. We cannot afford to be parochial about these matters.
As we discuss these matters, the House should bear in mind that, when the Secretary of State for the Environment talks about trivial accidents within the British industry, he seems to be implying that, because these accidents are minor, they carry low risk. Nothing could be further from the truth. One is not synonymous with the other.
I could discuss many aspects of these issues, but in the short time available I must confine myself to information and regulation.
We have been told that the information given as a result of Chernobyl was full, frank, open and free. In fact, the full information that it is claimed was given came in a report based on a scant sampling in minuscule, almost illegible handwriting.
I would dispute that the information was frank. We were told that a similar design to the Chernobyl reactor was rejected in Britain on safety grounds. That, quite honestly, is less than honest. The design that was rejected in Britain was rejected on the grounds of lack of efficiency and economy. To suggest anything else would be untrue.
The comparison with jumbo jet accidents and the incidence of hazards from smoking is, once again, misleading. Those accidents and smoking hazards strike only at the existing generation. When we discuss radioactive elements we discuss issues that strike at subsequent generations. They strike at creation itself. They have the propensity to turn back the very clock of creation and evolution.
Let me give two quotations to show how open has been the information that we have been given. First:
It would have been a precaution to have kept children inside on Saturday when it rained … But that is in retrospect. Try not to put that statement out because people could he frightened by it.
That was a statement by the National Radiological Protection Board to a member of the media and can be substantiated.
Secondly:
We don't have the policy of divulging area breakdowns of the radiation figures for milk … The tendency would be for members of the public to buy their milk from areas with a less radioactive level and that would be no good for the milk suppliers.
That is a quote from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the same member of the media. In other words, what it is really saying is that profits matter, people do not.
At the time that the Government were criticising the Soviet Government for their inability to release information relating to the possible exposure of British subjects to radiation, they were refusing information about the possibility of British subjects consuming the same damned stuff in irradiated food.
When we talked about the kind of things that govern regulations, let us remember that it is already acknowledged that those regulations are based upon data which are already flawed, so much so that we have had to return to the database supplied by Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to examine it with the more sophisticated and recent developments in data analysis.
We are told that our standards equate to international standards. That is another misleading piece of information. The legally enforceable limit in Britain for the ordinary member of the public is 5 mSv per year. The international standards of acceptability—not safety, note—is 1 mSv per year. In Western Germany it is 0·3 mSv per year. In the United States it is 0·25 mSv per year.
If one concentrates on those figures and develops them, they mean that the Americans are 20 times safer than we are, the West Germans are 17 times safer and anywhere else in the world which accepts international standards is five times safer.

Mr. Peter Walker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman may take issue with me—please do. I suggest that all the information has been, to some degree, deceiving. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to dispel the deception, he should answer my questions.
Derived emergency reference levels, as published by the NRPB, are based on a dose limit to the public of 5 mSv a year, as I have said. Is there not now a case for limiting supplies of food on the basis of the new limit of 1 mSv per year, even though this is only an average dose limit?
Could the Government explain definitively why derived emergency reference levels differ, for example, for iodine-131 in milk, by as much as a factor of four in the countries of western Europe?
What are the levels of actinides and strontium-90 in the environment and food at the present time as a result of the Russian reactor incident?
When will the Government make available to the public in a simple form the implications for holidaymakers, and indeed delegations of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of the levels of radioactivity in other countries that they may visit?
Finally, does the Secretary of State agree that one organisation—I hope that he is listening—similar to the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, should both collate and disseminate monitoring data to the British public, this one organisation to have both governmental and independent representation and to provide information in a simple, understandable manner on risk to the public from all sources, not just from radiation?
Will the Secretary of State try to answer those questions as a means of, to some extent, dispelling my suspicions of previous deception?

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): I think the House knows that Elstow in my constituency has had hanging over it for two and a half years longer than anybody else the worry of a repository for short and intermediate-level nuclear waste. I welcome the Government's decision to remove the intermediate-level waste from that threat. Nevertheless, I make no apology for saying that I do not believe that any inland site in a crowded county is the right place to put any sort of nuclear waste of this nature.
It is worth remembering that no country in Europe is proposing to solve the problems, which we all recognise must be tackled and solved, in that way. Centre de la Manche in northern France is the only broadly similar example, but that does not rely on the concept of total containment alone. It has fail-safe drainage to the sea. The concept of total containment is really not credible to anybody who believes in Murphy's law. There must be a risk that sooner or later on a 300-acre site, which, by definition, will become waterlogged, drums may rupture, concrete may fail and water-bearing radionuclides may leach away into the aquifers and thereby find a pathway to man. We and the industry hope that that will not happen, but it is hard to persuade the public. I sympathise with and support what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said in that respect.
In Bedfordshire we oppose the NIREX proposals constructively. I think that the vast majority of us support the nuclear industry and realise that there must be a solution. I have had the problem for two and a half years, and I have studied it closely. I believe that there are solutions. My request to the Government in this debate is to look again closely at three things.
I ask them to look at the quantities of low-level waste that have to be dealt with, to look at the methods which are available for its disposal, and to look with a jaundiced eye at the comparative cost. Remember that we have to solve the problem of intermediate-level nuclear waste

which the Government and the Select Committee have made clear is bound to be dealt with by some sort of deep-mine facility.
The quantities of low-level waste are, to my astonishment, much lower than any of us had realised. If one looks carefully at the best practical environmental options that have been produced for the Government, and at the Government response to the Select Committee's report, one finds that they are proposing to put into Drigg between 350,000 and 1·2 million cu m of waste, depending on how much it is compacted. All the low-level waste that they are proposing to put in elsewhere amounts to 191,000 cu m, which will cut down at least to a third—about 63,000 cu m—and may well be cut down much more. At the moment that low-level waste is not properly monitored because it was not considered worth while when compared with the cheap cost of putting it into Drigg.
When one considers the higher costs, and monitors the waste carefully, vast quantities can be excluded which could perfectly well go on a council tip. One would be able to burn or compact the gloves and coats, and one would be able to treat a great deal of the remainder. Even if one was left with 63,000 cu m of low-level waste, which is the maximum, that is a third of the 200,000 cu m of intermediate low-level waste which the best practical environmental options study said would have to be put into a deep-mined site.
The costs which the Government put forward for Drigg were a mere £25 per cu m. The waste was merely dumped, as in any other council tip. A similar site was proposed for Bedfordshire. NIREX has now said that a site at Bedfordshire, Fulbeck or anywhere else, would be a fully engineered site. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee, said that there must be a fully engineered Rolls-Royce solution. The cost of such a site, according to the BPEO document, was £615 per cu m. I do not know whether that is broadly accepted by the Government. The mininum costs for a mere concrete shell would be £125 per cu m.
We must consider the alternative of the deep disposal solution and consider the proven technologies of the oil and gas industries in the North sea. Dr. Wheeler has referred us to such technology. Westinghouse has been doing similar work and the suggested costing is £400 per cu m. That is less than the cost of the Rolls-Royce solution for a near-surface, or shallow, land burial site. That cost is likely to come down as a result of the economies of scale that would follow. The residual 60,000 cu m of low-level waste would be added to the 200,000 cu m of intermediate-level waste.
I recognise that my figures ignore, as indeed the answer to my parliamentary questions ignored, the extra low-level waste that could come from the decommissioned Magnox reactors. The timing of such decommissioning is doubtful. It is doubtful whether we should shift the low-level radioactive material when the high-level radioactive cores are left on the site.
I ask my right hon. Friends to invite NIREX and their Departments to study the matter again and to consider the quantities that will be dealt with. My right hon. Friends should insist, as the public rightly insists, that everything that is to go either into a repository or into a council tip—much of the waste could go to a tip, as it is perfectly harmless—is properly monitored before being moved anywhere. That would greatly enhance public confidence.


When one discovers that the quantities involved are low, on may find a deep-mined or sub-sea manifold solution looks much more attractive.
There are powerful reasons why an inland site at Elstow is wholly unsuitable. I could mention that the depth of the clay is probably insufficient, or that the clay is an important mineral reserve for the brick-making industry, which is one of the principal local employers. I have put forward carefully thought out reasons why there is a much more acceptable solution to these problems. I hope that my right hon. Friends will say that they will go away and consider them carefully.

Mr. Tony Benn: I should like to express sympathy for the terrible tragedy that the Soviet people have suffered, in terms not only of the immediate loss of life but of the loss of life that may come later and of the contamination of their crops. I am aware that it is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Energy, but if it were possible to make a gift of food, which is at present held by the Common Market, that would assist the Soviet Union at this time. I believe that would be much appreciated and would contribute to better relations between East and West, which may result in lessening the risks of nuclear war.
I have risen to put on record the reasons why I take the view, to which I have come slowly over the years, that we should have an energy policy that does not incorporate a nuclear component. I say that, having been responsible for the Atomic Energy Authority as Minister of Technology, from 1966 to 1970 and again as Secretary of State for Energy from 1975 to 1979.
I express my respect for the scientists and people who work in the industry. Many of them were motivated to work for civil nuclear power because they believed it was an alternative to the military uses of nuclear energy. The Atoms for Peace campaign, which was launched by President Eisenhower, was seen as a major development of technology in the interests of mankind. It was certainly considered as such by my generation who remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a classic case of swords into ploughshares, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) expressed powerfully in his speech.
Nuclear energy was to be a peaceful development; it was to be cheaper and safe; and we were to be open about it. I regret to tell the House that my experience, over many years from that Dispatch Box, taught me that none of those arguments was true. I wish to point out one or two of the facts that the House should take into account.
Nuclear power began as a military operation. In the countries which have adopted it, it remains primarily necessary for military purposes. In India, Pakistan and Iran, and in Britain, it was wanted for military purposes. The first British reactor was built when Mr. Attlee decided that Britain needed the bomb. That desire was not confided to his Cabinet or to Parliament. That was the origin of the development of British nuclear power.
The proliferation which has followed has been a proliferation with military consequences. The House may be aware that within Euratom, of which we are members, there is no safeguard to prevent the French, who have not signed the non-proliferation treaty, from obtaining

uranium for its bomb programme, even though that means that it is no longer possible for Canadian uranium to come to Britain because it would go outside its safeguards.
It is an expensive technology, concealed by the fact that the research and development has been paid for by the Ministry of Defence. Recently the French stated that it would cost 40 per cent. of the cost of construction of a new power station to decommission a nuclear power station. It would cost about £600 million to decommission each nuclear power station.
We have no answer to the waste problem. I accept that whether we proceed or—as I believe we should—stop and phase out nuclear energy, there will a residual waste problem. Is nuclear energy safe? It was only by an act of God or of chance that the accident occurred in Chernobyl, not here.
In 1969, I was Minister of Technology when the corrosion occurred at the Magnox stations. I was told in great detail how a meltdown might occur if it was impossible to close the reactor down and if the heat exchanger ruptured. At Windscale there was a serious fire, and serious leaks also occurred. Another leak occurred at the end of my period as Secretary of State for Energy. A soil sample was taken in December 1978, but it was not analysed until March 1979. I was informed of the analysis a few days later, and 2,200 gallons of highly toxic waste had seeped into the earth. It lies there today under the clay, just above the water table. When I asked about cleaning it, I was told that a new plant would be required for the clean-up operation. For that reason, one of my last acts as a Minister was to state that there should be an inquiry into Windscale.
There was a near-disaster at Three Mile Island. But people may not be aware of what happened at Brown's Ferry in America. A fuse blew at that site. A scientist was sent to look for the fuse box with a candle, and he set fire to the safety circuit.
There was serious corrosion at Winfrith. It was discovered that a dissatisfied employee had urinated into the equipment, and Scotland Yard had to be called in to discover how the corrosion had occurred.
At Hunterston a valve was turned the wrong way and sea water was brought into the station. As a result, the power station was out of action for a year.
One cannot exclude human error. There have been many cover-ups. When there was a big explosion in Kyshtym American intelligence picked it up and told the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1958, but American intelligence also told it not to tell British Ministers. When 200 tonnes of uranium was stolen from Euratom in 1968 I was Minister, but I was not told, on the ground that Britain was not a member of the Common Market.
The biggest cover-up of all, for which I shall never forgive those responsible, was that throughout the period when I was Minister plutonium from our atoms-for-peace reactors was going to America to make bombs and warheads that would return to American bases here. That view has been confirmed by Ministers in this Government. I was cross-examined about it at the Sizewell inquiry, and only recently has it been admitted that the atoms-for-peace power stations are in reality bomb factories for the United States.
The environmental hazards of nuclear power both now and later are too great for us to take. The cumulative effect of radioactivity is very different from the reassuring


statements that we receive about little doses that may come from time to time. The military implications of what happened at Chernobyl are phenomenal. People must now know that if we bomb Russia, the bombs that we drop will release radioactivity that will ultimately destroy us, and if conventional weapons are dropped on our nuclear power stations radioactivity comparable to that from a nuclear attack will be released.
The civil liberties of which we are so proud are bound to go by the board when dealing with such a dangerous technology that has military implications. I have been to the plutonium store in Dounreay. It is like a bank vault. One can understand why the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is armed with orders to shoot to kill in the event of an attempt to steal plutonium. We must phase out nuclear power. We must cancel the PWR, abandon the Dounreay project, close Sellafield and decommission nuclear stations, beginning with the older stations. Anyone who thinks that the industry's skills will not be required should bear in mind that it will take the skill of every nuclear engineer for 10 years to clean up what has, alas, been created.
The miners were right to say that coal should be the basis of our future energy needs. In the 1960s the pits were closed on the ground that oil would always be cheaper. In the 1980s they were closed on the ground that nuclear energy was better. We should go for a coal programme. Even my Department admitted that, even with the fiddled figures for nuclear energy, coal was as cheap as nuclear power. We should also go for conservation and for alternative sources of energy.
I fear that Chernobyl will not be the last accident. I listened to the debate and wondered how different it would have been if that accident had occurred at Bradwell, Hunterston, Oldbury or Torness. I share the view expressed today. This is a technology that humanity cannot handle, and, not for the first time, the public are ahead of Parliament in perceiving that.

Mr. John Hannam: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke from his experience in government. I speak as someone who has been involved in the sphere of energy in Parliament for about 12 years. During that time we have seen major changes in different parts of the energy equation. We saw oil prices rocket, causing alternatives to come into play. We then, of course, saw prices fall. Coal went out of favour through needless political militancy, and natural gas developed as a major source of both domestic and commercial fuel.
During all that time, the concept of nuclear power as a one-fifth component in our electricity generation has remained constant, although various systems for its generation have gone in and out of scientific and political favour. But in this country the underlying factor in our debates and discussions has always been that of safety, even if the cost in design and construction terms has meant that we have been slower and less economic in our nuclear development.
With a massive over-capacity of generating power throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, and with the seven AGRs coming into commission between 1976 and the late 1980s, there has been no urgency for new nuclear capacity except now on the grounds of maintaining a low-cost

baseload generation of electricity, of needing to keep the nuclear construction industry in existence and of requiring replacements for the Magnox stations which began their careers in 1956, 30 years ago. The debate in recent years has essentially become one of choice of design of thermal reactor. It has been a debate about the thermal reactor that we will need for the next half century and about whether it should be the AGR or the PWR, gas-cooled reactors or water-cooled reactors. There has also been the parallel debate, which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield recreated, of nuclear energy versus coal.
I have never believed in a picture of the next century of power generation comprising anything other than mainly nuclear reactors, with oil fading off the scene and coal replacing oil as the main industrial feedstock, and not being used for electricity generation. In any case, coal is a heavy polluter of the earth's atmosphere and produces a death toll many times greater than that of nuclear power. In the United States, it is estimated that some 25,000 people die each year as a result of coal burning. Nevertheless, in the short term, coal is available, albeit at a high cost to the consumer and at a high cost in terms of security of supply.
Alternatives such as wave or wind power, or even solar power, could assist a little in the overall electricity equation, but we should still be left with the need for that crucial 20 to 25 per cent. baseload supply of low-cost nuclear power. Even on that basis, we should be far behind other European countries, such as France with 60 to 75 per cent., Belgium with 60 per cent., or Germany with 45 per cent. or more, which all supply electricity 20 per cent. more cheaply to our competitors in industry.
The recent Tokyo summit declaration stated:
Nuclear power is, and properly managed will continue to be an increasingly widely used source of energy".
I support that international view, and I hope that the House and the country will also support it. But the declaration went on to say:
For each country the maintenance of safety and security is an international responsibility and each country engaged in nuclear power generation bears full responsibility for the safety of the design, manufacture, operation and maintenance of its installations".
The Russian nuclear disaster, like other high-tech disasters that they have experienced, was due to their failure to maintain the high standards required. It is essential now that the Soviet Government should join fully in the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency to achieve safe international guidelines. But we would be wrong, and would fail in our duty as legislators, if we allowed ourselves to panic over this issue. The consequences would rebound on future generations just as surely as would our failure to effect proper safeguards over the use of atomic power for peaceful purposes.
That also means the processes of dealing with nuclear waste, with which the Select Committee concerned itself. A few weeks ago, I visited Sellafield and was reassured to find a new realisation among the management that the ways of the past were no longer acceptable and that much more effective safety controls must be introduced.
The Select Committee report was wide-ranging, hard-hitting and constructive. I am pleased that the nuclear industry's response was not to rubbish the report but to agree to look at each recommendation very carefully. The public, quite naturally, are deeply concerned about the dangers of radiation, and until they receive proper explanations and reassurances from the experts—I do


not mean just those working within the reprocessing industry—it is understandable that they should give the thumbs down to nuclear power developments.
At the moment, any release of radioactivity causes alarm, even if the level is well below that received from other normal processes in life. The nuclear industry must find a language that is clearly understood by everyone, so that very low-level activity such as that from discarded clothing or gloves is understood to be less than that from a television set. When we talk of safe nuclear reactor systems, we must be able to explain to the layman exactly why they are safe.
The Chernobyl reactor was by all accounts a reactor waiting for a disaster. The complacency of the Russians in allowing poor manufacturing standards and compromise technology led to the world's worst nuclear disaster. Yet warnings had been given by our own nuclear experts back in 1978 when they pinpointed the Russian RBMK reactors as having crucial flaws in design, with the absence of secondary containment vessels. reactor shutdown devices and emergency cooling systems. The use of graphite as a moderator and the extremely high operating temperature of 750 deg. C meant that, if steam came into contact with the graphite, a violent reaction would set in and the subsequent generation of hot hydrogen gas would lead to ignition and explosion.
Therefore, pending the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry, we should redouble our efforts to secure every piece of information we can get through the international agency, not only about every type of nuclear reactor being used in the world, but about all the small incidents which have occurred and which will help us in ensuring the integral safety of the system that we eventually decide to develop.
For example, not far from here is the French nuclear system. Some of their older gas reactors also use graphite as a moderator. Electricit é de France has announced that its technology is completely different. So there is no intention to close down those reactors; it says that they have concrete screening anyway. The French have more than 50 nuclear reactors in operation or under construction. Apart from the four older gas graphite reactors and the two fast breeder reactors, all the others are PWRs and are judged to be considerably safer than the older plants.
The Sizewell PWR design is also considered to be far safer than the older PWRs like the Three Mile Island reactor, which is 20 years old. The French are massively engaged in nuclear generation. I hope that our scientitst and safety experts are co-operating closely with the French, so that all the information about their nuclear experiences can be made known.
There must be no secrecy. If nuclear power is to play the part that I believe it should in our future energy scene, it must be on the basis of total understanding of the technology and the safety system that is built into the reactors. The public perception that by opting out of nuclear power and declaring Britain a nuclear-free zone we will in one bound be free from any possible radiation danger, is obviously false. The use of this immense source of cheap energy is an international concern and the Chernobyl disaster has brought home that fact, even to the Russians. Such a disaster should not, and must not, be allowed to happen again. The extra costs inherent in a safe

system of nuclear generation are a burden that mankind is prepared to pay, just as we must pay the extra costs for safety in chemicals manufacture and in coal burning.
If the Chernobyl accident had happened in the United States, the political anger and furore would have been immense. The other side would have been deafening in its accusations of cutting corners, of placing profit before safety and of lack of concern either for employees or for the neighbouring community. But the accident did not happen in the free West and we can justifiably argue that, under our system of public inquiry, licensing regulations and safety requirements, the Chernobyl form of reactor would never have been built here.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was right to state that there would have been no disaster at Chernobyl had the Soviet Union followed the procedures of the democracies. But what has happened has happened, and many people and families, while acccepting the points that I have just made, are still extremely worried about the possibility that, given all the safety we can build into our systems, we could still have the risk of a nuclear accident, however remote.
So a major task faces the international agencies of government and industry. I am confident that we can resolve the problem and continue to have the low-cost energy for the future which only nuclear power can provide.

Mr. Chris Smith: It is such a rare occurrence for the Government, in the face of the evidence, to take a sensible decision to change their mind that we must begin by welcoming the Government's decision, in their response to the Select Committee, that they no longer intend to place intermediate-level waste, however short-lived, in shallow disposal facilities. That is a small step in the right direction and is much to be welcomed.
However, the Government's initial response to the Select Committee is, I fear, severely inadequate in other respects. In dealing with the shallow disposal facilities, the Government have not taken on board the Select Committee's recommendations about the definition of low level waste, about the alpha emissions of such waste or about the radionuclides that are contained in much of the waste that goes into Drigg, for example. There should be a much tighter definition of low-level waste which may well go into one of the four sites for which NIREX is currently prospecting.
In addition, the Government have said nothing about what they intend to do with the intermediate-level waste. The long-term answer is to stop the reprocessing operation, because it is only through reprocessing that intermediate-level waste is produced. None the less, we have such waste and something has to be done with it. As the Government have said nothing about how they propose to deal with that waste, there are severe inadequacies even around the one concession which they made on receipt of the evidence produced by the Select Committee.
The Government have also failed to deal with some of the major proposals of the Select Committee about the operation of Drigg and the need to have a much more carefully engineered and monitored facility for the disposal of low-level waste. We must recall that the Select Committee said unequivocally that Drigg is an unacceptable model for the disposal of any waste, however


low-level. I have been to Drigg and have found that it is operated like a municipal rubbish tip, with none of the safeguards which any reasonable member of the public would expect on a disposal site for low-level waste. If we are to continue with the shallow disposal of even the lowest level of radioactive waste, there must be much more careful monitoring of the waste when it arrives at the disposal facility. It must be packaged properly and its disposal must be carefully engineered; it should not just be tipped in, as happens at present.
The Government have not dealt properly with any of those recommendations in their response to the Select Committee. They say that improvements can be and are being made in line with current practice, but that is not good enough. That will not satisfy the enormous public concern which justifiably exists about the way in which the by-products of the nuclear production process are handled and disposed of.
Much to my disappointment, the Government have not yet replied to the Select Committee's comments on the transport of nuclear waste. Nearly every night, trains carrying nuclear waste pass through my constituency. The Select Committee had graphic evidence about what might happen, admittedly in remotely conceivable occurrences, if an accident took place to one of those trains. The evidence was that, if a train carrying nuclear waste were to catch fire, radiation could spread over a wide area. The Select Committee made specific recommendations about the timetabling of the movement of such trains. The Government have not yet responded to those recommendations. The matter is urgent. The Government should carefully consider those recommendations and should produce early answers about the future transportation of nuclear waste around the country and particularly through my constituency.
Having said that the Government's initial response is inadequate in those respects, I must also say that the root cause of the nuclear waste problem and of the Government's reluctance to deal with nuclear waste properly lies in their long-standing love affair with the nuclear industry. The Government are moving firmly in the wrong direction. About 17 per cent. of our electricity production comes from nuclear generation. The Government intend—they revealed this to me in a parliamentary answer some months ago—to increase that percentage to 25 per cent. by 1990. That is a move in the wrong direction. We shold move down from 17 per cent. instead of up.
Britain's future energy production should be based on the principal production of coal-fired power stations using cleanburn technology. Much rubbish has been talked about acid rain being produced by coal-fired power stations. Of course acid rain is produced by the gases that come from coal-fired power stations, but the technology exists to remove the gases and to burn coal cleanly. That is the way forward for our electricity production, coupled with major programmes of alternative energy, research in conservation measures that are badly needed in much of the rotten housing in which many of people must live and combined heat and power schemes in power stations, which could provide good, cheap energy resources. That is the way forward for a sensible energy policy.
I have heard nothing from the Government or from their Back-Bench Members—who protest too much about

their worries—to convince me that the Government have a sensible energy policy. We need an energy policy that uses our indigenous resources and that commands widespread public support. The way forward is clear and the Labour Government who will come into office next year will follow that much more sensible policy.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about the nuclear industry meeting the needs of the people, but we also need politicians who will be a little more honest with the people about the risks. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) criticised the National Radiological Protection Board and regaled the House with a record of a conversation in which a board representative said that giving advice not to play in the rain could create public panic. That is right. On 3 May, in Glasgow, when the radiation in the rain was measured at 10,000 becquerels per litre—which I understand was one of the highest recorded levels in Britain—even if someone had gone out and drunk rainwater throughout the day, the effect on his health would be the equivalent of smoking one cigarette every 50 days. It was negligible.
From the accounts broadcast by BBC Scotland and the rest of the Scottish media, the public were left with the clear impression that there was a major cause for anxiety. Constituents telephoned my home and asked whether it was safe for children to touch the grass. That unjustified public hysteria was created and promoted by some politicians, notably the hon member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and some of his Liberal friends, who have now left the Chamber. They deliberately sought to wind up public concern to further their position, which is difficult to define but which is broadly hostile to nuclear power.
The facts are that in no part of Britain were the public health effects of the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster—all hon. Members have considerable sympathy for the people who were affected by it in the Soviet Union—any worse than they would be for someone taking a fortnight's holiday in Cornwall. I say that because in parts of Cornwall, as in parts of the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the background count was considerably higher because of the presence of radoactive granite. Indeed, 1 per cent. of the homes in Cornwall—that represents 4,000 people—are exposed to radiation from the rocks which make up their homes at a greater level than would be tolerated at Sellafield, which is 5 rems.
Liberal Members, especially the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who talk about emergency levels in milk would do well to read the report of the Kemeny commission, which was set up to investigate the effects of the Three Mile Island disaster. Its conclusion was that the worst effects on public health came from irresponsible politicians and irresponsible people in the media, who needlessly created great public anxiety and stress. More people's lives were shortened through that stress than were ever in danger from radioactivity. I recognise that there are worries, but in this debate people should examine the facts and try to communicate them instead of fanning the flames of hysteria.
The British nuclear industry has a remarkable record. Despite the scares and some of the speeches that we have


heard, it remains true that the average family watching television for four hours a day receives far more radiation than anyone living within five miles of a nuclear power station.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Rubbish.

Mr. Forsyth: It is not rubbish; it has been measured. Hon. Members who have done any science will be aware that X-rays are emitted by the cathode ray tubes in colour televison sets.

Mr. Bruce: That is not what we are considering.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that, but he is wrong. We are talking about the effects of electromagnetic radiation on people's health.
Apart from background radiation, the largest doses of radiation received by most people come in the form of medical applications, including X-rays. Workers in nuclear power receive larger doses than most of us. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said that we should concentrate on coal and that six deaths at Chernobyl are not the same as six deaths in the mines. He would do well to remember that, since 1975, there have been nine deaths in the nuclear industry—none of them because of radiation, and all of them conventional accidents—compared with 399 deaths in coal mining. If our worry is for workers' health, nuclear power wins hands down. If hon. Members are worried about exposure to radiation, they should turn their attention to British Airways, because aircraft crew are exposed to twice as much radiation as the rest of us on the ground.
If we consider the facts and statistics about the risk of premature death from accidents and cancer, we discover that, in deep-sea fishing, the figure is one in 400; in coal mining, it is one in 4,000; in construction, it is one in 5,000; the average for all employment is one in 20,000; and for radiation workers, the figure is one in 20,000. Nuclear workers are at less risk than workers in those other industries.
The Liberals wish to have it all ways. They tell us that they wish to decommission nuclear power stations. They should address their minds to the costs of doing that, because there are risks from other means of generation. We shall lose tremendous advantages if we give up nuclear power. Whatever the hon. Member for Gordon says, the French enjoy a 1 billion cost advantage over British industry because of their nuclear power, yet he continually tells the House that we should do more for our manufacturing base. We could hardly do more damage than by removing the opportunities to be competitive on energy.
Indeed, this Scottish Member had the cheek to come to the House and tell us that he wants to see the Magnox stations decommissioned, when in Scotland electricity is 25 per cent. less expensive that it would otherwise be, thanks to nuclear power. The Opposition made a great fuss about cold weather and heating allowances. The great benefit that Scotland enjoys is cheap electricity, and that is due to the investment that has been made in nuclear power. Pensioners in Scotland and the poor who are worried about their heating bills should know for certain that the Liberals and the Labour party will put up their fuel bills so that there would be more deaths from hypothermia and, indeed. in the coal mines and elsewhere.
If it is employment that hon. Members are worried about, they can explain to the people in the west of

Scotland working for Babcock Power and Wear Pumps, who have 1,200 man-years of work riding on the other of a nuclear power station after Sizewell, why their jobs were lost because of the ideological opposition of those Members.
Those who seem to think it is possible to duck the question of disposal simply by saying that we will not have a nuclear power industry can also explain to the people in hospital and elsewhere who benefit from radiation treatment that there will be no place to dispose of the radionuclides in use. There is a tremendous gap between the public understanding of radioactive waste and the reality of the danger that it presents.
I commend to the House the excellent paper presented to us by the nuclear industry. It shows that the average surburban garden contains 4 lb of uranium and 13 lb of thorium and that the natural radioactivity that exists all round us presents a far greater threat than the low-level waste that we are discussing. Indeed, the idea that garden fertiliser containing radioactive potassium should have half the level of waste of what is exercising my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in itself shows the extent to which the debate has got out of hand.
The Select Committee states that it believes that no alpha-emitting low-level waste should be disposed of. I conclude by pointing out that in Scotland the granite chips to be found on everybody's drive emit alpha radiation containing long-life nuclides in the form of uranium. Opposition Members are saying here that in no way can we allow this sort of material to be buried in the soil, when in Scotland it is placed in drives to prevent motor cars from sinking into the soil. I believe that we need a debate in the country, but it must be a responsible one, based on rational choices and real information.

Mr. Allan Roberts: We are discussing not only the Select Committee's report and the Government's partial response to that part of it which deals with the disposal of low-level and intermediate-level waste, but the accident that everybody—including the Secretary of State for Energy, who recently visited the Soviet Union and came back and reported that Soviet nuclear energy was safe—said could never happen. To blame the Soviet Union and suggest that its systems are so different from ours that it could never happen here is to insult the intelligence not only of the House but of the British public.
Other matters have not been dealt with adequately in the debate. After the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who eloquently produced the nuclear industry's brief, I want to deal with some of the points on which he touched and which affect the recommendations of the Select Committee, to which the Government have not yet responded.
I deal first with the consequences and risks in nuclear energy. The nuclear industry argues that new technologies, ideas and ventures have always been resisted. Nuclear energy, the industry argues, is like electricity. It is said that some people used to believe that, if one left the plug out, electricity would escape. That is not true, but it is certainly true of nuclear power and nuclear energy. To compare, as the nuclear industry always does, the background radiation of a television set or flying in a jet with what happened at Chernobyl and what could be released into the environment if a major accident happened


at a nuclear power station is again to insult the intelligence of the British people. To compare the kind of accidents in which people are killed in coal mines—ignoring those being killed in the uranium mines—with the possibility of a nuclear accident, which, as my hon. Friends have said, affects not only those working in the industry and, as happened in the Aberfan disaster, those living near the area, but future generations and the genetic structure of human beings and those yet unborn is to compare things that are very different in nature. Nuclear accidents are quite different in kind from any accidents in the coal mining industry or in factories.
We are talking about different levels of waste and radioactive discharges. First, there are discharges to the environment and radioactive water going into the Irish sea. Any single discharge has a background radiation level lower than that in bricks and on the television screen. It was thought that the sea would disperse it, but it has not done so. That statistic does not take account of the buildup of a continuing discharge of low-level radioactivity. The build-up is such that even worms go through it and become radioactive; fish eat the worms; and that is the chain reaction back to mankind. Nobody knows the consequences of a build-up of discharges to the environment, which must be stopped.
As to the low-level waste that will be put in shallow-burial engineered trenches, the Government have now accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee. That is despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Energy, pre-Chernobyl, was rubbishing the regulations and saying that these were merely the views of a few Back Benchers with advisers who were passionately antinuclear. The Secretary of State for Energy, pre-Chernobyl, praised the safety record of Sellafield and described the Select Committee's report as "lovely, emotive phrases" to which he said he would be responding formally after studying the report.
Now we have the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the aftermath of Chernobyl and public opinion, saying that the Select Committee on the Environment in its report on radioactive waste has helped to clarify the issues involved. Indeed, I believe that it has, because there is the acceptance that low-level waste should not be put in shallow-burial sites unless they are engineered and sealed off as the dangers are recognised.
It is also said that intermediate-level waste should not be put in the same sites. The hon. Member for Stirling compared that low-level waste with the high-level waste from the nuclear industry. No high-level waste comes from hospitals or any other industry. The high-level waste is the spent fuel waste that has to be stored disposed of or reprocessed. The reprocessing produces liquid high-level waste, which is now stored in huge tanks at Sellafield and stirred to stop it settling, and it has yet to be vitrified and disposed of.
The Select Committee toured nearly every nuclear advanced country in the world. Not one country, as yet, has conclusively proved that this high-level waste can be safely disposed of in deep geological disposal sites. If the Government want to put low-level and intermediate-level waste in deep geological disposal sites in hon. Members constituencies, they must prove that it is safe. Nobody has yet disposed of any high-level waste anywhere in the world. It is still stored in France, which is the most

advanced country, vitrified and ready for disposal. Research is going on in every country in the world, except this country, as to how, or whether, one can dispose of it.
If it is put in a mine, in granite, clay or salt, as the Germans are doing, one has to be certain that, not for 100 years, not for 1,000 years, but for 1 million years that radioactivity that has been sealed up will not get back into man's environment. It can return to man's environment if water passes over it and through it and it gets into the water course. No one has proved conclusively anywhere in the world—the onus is on the Government and the industry to engage in research and to produce proof, and if it cannot it must stop production—that it can be disposed of safely.
I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that the next Labour Government would review THORP. The Government have not dealt with the issue raised by the Select Committee, which is whether reprocessing should continue and whether THORP should be completed. When the THORP contract arose and we were to start reprocessing, the world price of uranium was high and it was felt that it was necessary to recover uranium and to produce plutonium. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, plutonium is required for bombs, and it is needed also for the fast breeder reactor.
When I visited America with other members of the Select Committee, we found that President Carter had stopped all the reprocessing of civil spent fuel rods. He had separated the specific reprocessing plant that would reprocess what plutonium was needed for American bombs. At that time he was getting plutonium from us secretly. President Carter costed this and separated the reprocessing plant from the rest of the programme. At that time the Democrats were committed to non-proliferation and they did not want to produce more plutonium than they needed for themselves. President Reagan has said that production can increase if it is economically viable, but it has not increased because it would not be commercially viable to take that course. That is because the world price of uranium has dropped dramatically. In Canada, for example, it is coming out of their ears. There needs to be a reassessment.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland say that the next Labour Government would repeal the Official Secrets Act and end the military production of plutonium. How dare the Government attack the Russians for their secrecy? British Members of Parliament who were members of the Select Committee that went to the United States were shown the costings for the military and civil nuclear programmes. They were shown where the plutonium was produced for military purposes and they were given the facts and figures that were denied to them in Britain because of the Official Secrets Act. The Government would not tell us the truth about what was happening at Sellafield. Those who doubt me—[Interruption.] there is no need for hon. Members to shout at me—should speak to those Conservative Members who were part of the group that went to America whether what I have said is true.
I and other members of the Select Committee went to Drigg, and we saw things that would not have been allowed in any other country. We found that low-level and intermediate-level waste—at first it was denied that intermediate-level waste was being handled in this way—was dumped into shallow trenches and covered with


soil. Water leached through it, and the result was radioactivity in streams. None of the other nuclear countries that the Select Committee visited would have tolerated that. Not one of them would have allowed that activity to continue.
As members of a Select Committee, we were not able to compare the economics of the nuclear industry with those of coal-fired power stations. That was because we could not obtain the facts about the cross-subsidisation of the military and civil processes. We were not able to obtain any real costings of the necessary research to deal with the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. I am convinced to this day that the long-term consequences of controlling, monitoring and disposing of nuclear waste will be so costly that the economic case that has been argued so far, which is based on the cost of producing electricity from nuclear power, will be proved to be entirely wrong.
The nuclear industry and the Government must rethink their cavalier attitude in the light not only of public opinion but of an accident that many said would never happen. Chernobyl has demonstrated clearly to the British people the consequences of a major nuclear accident. The public feel that it could happen here, and they need more than reassurance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Senn) said, they realise that if such consequences can flow from an accident in a civil nuclear power station, the consequences would be immensely more severe from a nuclear weapon containing plutonium. At least the accident at Chernobyl did not put plutonium into the air, but that would happen if one small bomb exploded. No Government can offer any defence against nuclear weapons and their use. A nuclear power is in effect saying to its enemy, "If you attack us, we shall commit suicide." That has become more and more obvious during this debate.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks. I am not sure that I agree with all of his conclusions, but I listened to his speech with great interest, as did the rest of the House.
I shall confine my remarks to the NIREX proposal that the four sites which have been proposed should be surveyed for their suitability for the disposal of low-level waste in a near-surface disposal facility. I welcome the Government's decision to reject the proposal that the sites should be considered for the disposal of intermediate-level waste. It is a significant move and one which has been welcomed widely. I accept that the nature of the waste that will be deposited, should one of the sites be selected ultimately, will not necessarily be as dangerous as those who are concerned about the proposals would have us believe. We have a nuclear industry, whether we abandon it tomorrow or not, we know that industrial research involves the use and production of some radioactive material, and we know that medical research and treatment in hospitals leads in certain areas to radioactive byproducts. It follows, therefore, that we must address ourselves to the disposal of radioactive material.
I do not believe that the nuclear industry will be served by foisting on those who live around any one of the four sites a near-surface disposal facility when they do not consent to the same, when they do not want it, and when they object wholeheartedly to it.
My constituency is about 18 miles from the proposed site of South Killingholme and objection to the proposal has been mobilised in the constituency to tremendous effect. I believe that more than 120,000 people in the Humberside area have signed a petition that rejects the proposal, especially on the south bank. The people do not want it, principally because they are afraid of the consequences and implications.
I do not believe that we can get the public to accept the proposed disposal facilities unless they are fully informed, unless they understand, and unless they give their consent. If, in the face of overwhelming objections, the Government, or NIREX, proceed to survey the sites, go through the process of a public planning inquiry and ultimately select a site—we know that one will be selected, whatever may be said now—no good will be done to the nuclear industry. I speak on behalf of a constituency where steel is made, and if there is one thing that is important to the steel industry it is cheap energy. Even if we accept that the radioactive waste that we are discussing is safe and can be disposed of in the way that is proposed, it is arrogant of the Government and NIREX to proceed in the face of opposition of the sort that now exists.
Only France and the United States are using near-surface disposal facilities. They are not doing it in Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden. Belgium. Finland or, from the point of view of containment, in France. All those countries are using deep geological disposal methods for all waste—not just for intermediate and high-level waste, but for low-level waste, too. It is impossible to persuade the public that this type of facility is suitable for low-level waste when all those countries have decided that it is not suitable and are using alternative methods.
This policy does not depend upon demonstrating to right hon. and hon. Members or to experts that this method is safe. Safety is not the issue. The issue is public acceptability, consent, understanding and knowledge. If consent or acceptance cannot be obtained in the face of such objections, the Government run the risk of losing the nuclear argument altogether. If, willy-nilly, this policy is thrust down people's throats, the momentum of objections will build up to such an extent that the nuclear argument will be lost.
Therefore, I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench—who no doubt, as soon as I got to my feet, went somewhere else—that they should look at the alternatives. They should examine what the countries that I have mentioned have done. They should consider deep sea disposal and deep-mined disposal. We know that Drigg can be used for another 25 years. If the Government have responded to public pressure by making a concession on intermediate-level nuclear waste, I urge them to respond in the same way to the disposal of low -level waste.
No research whatsoever seems to have been carried out in the United Kingdom into the method of disposal of this type of waste. There should be a period of reflection, investigation and research. Unless at the end of the day the British public—I speak in particular of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigiz and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—can be persuaded that this type of facility is desirable, the Government run the risk of losing the nuclear industry argument altogether.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The issues that have to be faced in this debate are safety of technology and information about that technology. The nuclear industry is a public industry. A massive amount of public money is invested in it. Such a high level of public investment means that there must be full public accountability.
I was pleased that the Secretary of State for the Environment told us at the beginning of the debate that all kinds of incidents will now be reported. Responsible station managers in the Central Electricity Generating Board, such as the present manager at Trawsfynydd, are already doing that. That is because the public in the Trawsfynydd area, the media, myself and others demand it. Any incident at that station is reported immediately to members of the local liaison committee and to the media in the locality. That must apply to all stations and to all nuclear installations.
After his statement this afternoon, I assume that the Secretary of State for Environment will make it clear that all incidents, of whatever type—whether or not they relate to a reactor, or whether they are engineering or nuclear incidents in the stricter sense of the term where there is radiological danger or the minutest radiological emission, either on site or off site—should immediately be reported.
There must be openness and accountability about the way in which the effects of the Chernobyl disaster were reported in Britain and discussed in Britain by representatives of the nuclear industry. There must also be openness and accountability about the way in which the amounts of radioactive fissile material that affected our environment were treated. I wish to refer briefly to each of those issues, and I shall begin with the last, the level of discharges in this country.
Britain is not geared to monitoring effectively a release of fissile material into the atmosphere. Confused data from different sources were released. I live in an area that is close to a nuclear power station which has its own district monitoring sytem. Both I and the people who work at the station knew reasonably clearly that there was a massively increased level of radioactivity, compared with the background level, in that area following the high rainfall of that weekend. I had telephone calls both at home and at my office from staff at the station who were concerned about the fact that the levels of radioactivity that they were monitoring had not been made public.
The use of the CEGB network, on behalf of the National Radiological Protection Board, to provide material meant that in certain localities there was a fairly good picture of what was going on. However, it appears that the amount of information that was made available by the NRPB, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office was completely inadequate. The information was confused and it was not properly interpreted.
I am particularly concerned about the level of radioactive iodine in milk. I am concerned that a political decision might have been taken either by MAFF or by the Department of the Environment that the real levels of radioactive iodine that were being measured in milk during that period of high rainfall should not be released to the

public and were not used to advise Ministers that there should be a cessation of milk consumption. particularly by young people and children.
The levels that were reached were at least 30 per cent. of the derived emergency reference levels, not only in milk, but in rainfall. Those were levels at which action should have been taken. We are dealing not with absolute levels but with levels which have been laid down relative to what is regarded as tolerable.
There is increasing argument about the so-called permitted dosage. This issue concerns me as a representative of nuclear power workers. It also concerns me as the representative of constituents who live in a high rainfall area. We need to look carefully at the way in which this information was handled and disseminated to the public. We need also to look at the ministerial action that was taken on this information.
Many right hon. and hon. Members feel that the initial statements by the relevant Departments and, indeed, the statements made to the House by the Secretary of State for the Environment, were misleading. When he made his initial statement to the House, the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that water and milk were safe, but he did not make it clear whether he was referring to aggregate United Kingdom levels, or to specific areas, or whether he was speaking in general terms. The quality of the data that were available from different areas in the United Kingdom was insufficient to enable the public to decide whether they wanted to consume milk or to expose their children to that hazard.
Conservative Members have today used a spurious argument about the risk factors that are involved in different levels of exposure during different kinds of activity—what I call the cigarette syndrome. This argument no longer washes with the public. The public need to know the additional risk to which they are exposed from radiation from the nuclear power industry, the generating industry and, finally, from the nuclear processing industry. The public will not be fobbed off with spurious comparisons.
Certain spokespersons for the nuclear power industry, and certain right hon. and hon. Members said in a programme in which I took part earlier this week that if the public were given the information about the number of becquerels involved and other technical information they would not understand it. but it is of the same kind of complexity as the pollen count. Information about the pollen count is given regularly throughout the summer as part of our weather forecasts. If we had a proper level of scientific education in Britain, people would be capable of understanding information presented in specific terms. We do not have that yet, but we might have it as a result of the public interest now aroused. We must ensure that the figures are made available.
The second issue is not about information on the specific dosages and the results of exposure to the effects of the cloud, but about the lessons that Britain's nuclear industry must learn. I am concerned that experts in the nuclear industry should not only suggest that such an incident could not happen in this country, but apparently imply that there is no possible Chernobyl scenario for the existing reactor systems in Britain. I have lived close to the old type of Magnox reactor, so I am especially concerned that people are pretending that the combination of materials inside the Chernobyl reactor is not inside British reactors.
Lord Walter Marshall has made the famous statement that the reactor systems in Britain have forms of containment that are not available in the Soviet Union. I know the Trawsfynydd reactor intimately. I have seen it from all possible angles, except from inside. That reactor, like all the old Magnox reactors, does not have secondary containment. It has the major vessel and the biological shield, but the steam generating gas loops come out of the reactor vessel. That applies to all of the old Magnox reactors. The newer forms of reactors have a larger pressure vessel that contains the engineering aspects. The Magnox gas-cooled reactor is different from the form of coolant in the Soviet model. However, it is wrong to suggest that it is not possible to have a loss of coolant through a loss of gas from the Magnox reactors. Indeed, that has happened on a small scale and for example, water ingress to the reactor and loss of coolant.
To pretend that has not happened is to deny the information held by those who follow the nuclear debate. There may he a scenario that has a minimal risk, but as a result of Chernobyl the public now perceive that those pundits of the nuclear industry who have said that it could not happen here have been misleading them. The Secretary of State has picked up the new mood—even if some of his hon. Friends have not—of serious questioning and concern.
I represent a constituency which contains a nuclear power station employing 600 people. What will happen to communities such as Trawsfynydd if the climate of opinion in Britain means that we will not invest in a massive replacement of the Magnox generation? We may not build AGRs and we will certainly not build PWRs. There is an objection on the Opposition Benches, and by many Conservative Members, to constructing PWRs in Britain, whatever the Sizewell inquiry recommends. What will happen to communities, many in areas of high unemployment, which are dependent upon the nuclear industry? The Government and the Opposition must face that question. We must ensure that jobs are maintained in those areas. We want assurances now about jobs in areas such as Trawsfynydd which have the old Magnox stations which face decommissioning. We must tackle the issue now, not defer it until 1990 or 1995.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Conservation has been mentioned several times tonight, not least by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is appropriate in this debate to say that we are products of our environment. I was at university during the late 1960s and early 1970s, when there was great concern about conservation of the environment and the safety of the civil nuclear industry. The two, of course, are inextricably linked.
In succeeding years it is not surprising that, in the battle for our very economic survival, those issues have been pushed into a backwater inhabited mainly by the far Left and political eccentrics. It is no less surprising that, now that the success of the Government's economic policies has given the country sustained growth and low inflation, there should once again be more talk about the environment, and I welcome that. I especially welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, Countryside and Local Government to ensure that the Conservative party dons its rightful mantle as the conservor of and carer for our environment.
We have to make two decisions on the nuclear industry—on Sizewell and on the disposal of nuclear waste—that raise fundamental issues about the future of our nuclear policy and concern about our environment. We are standing as it were on the threshold of a busy thoroughfare—traffic is coming towards us at great speed from the left and the right. I do not argue that we should stand still for ever or that we should vegetate on one spot, but we should stop, think, look and, above all, listen. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—it is time to pause for reflection.
There is no overwhelming urgency about either decision. There is no rule requiring elected, accountable—and, it must be said, disposable—Ministers to proceed at the behest of an unelected and unaccountable body such as NIREX, and to do so at a rapid pace. Much as we regret the publicity surrounding Sellafield—unfair as much of it may be—much as we regret the disaster at Chernobyl and much as it may be true that we rejected that design of reactor many years ago, public confidence in the nuclear industry has been shaken. We cannot ignore that fact.
I listened with great respect and care to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and I agreed with much of what he said. However, the fact is that public confidence has been shaken. The incident at Chernobyl has proved the argument put forward for many years by those of us in the National Council for Civil Defence against official complacency and for more resources to be put into civil defence. The radioactive cloud that drifted towards Lincoln did not part like the Red sea when it appeared over the nuclear-free city—it carried on. We need effective civil defence, whatever our civil or military nuclear policies.
I do not believe that it is statesmenlike or resolute to fly in the face of public concern about the nuclear industry and to proceed regardless, without pausing for reflection. That is merely foolish. Ina few days, 12,000 of my constituents—who were not given much time by the Government for consultation—signed a petition collected by West Lindsey district council objecting to the disposal of waste in Humberside and Lincolnshire. Barring a handful, they are not Greenpeace activists or flower-shaking dropouts—they are decent folk from villages and small towns who are both worried and concerned, and to whose views the Government should listen with sympathy and concern. They need reassurance.
I am the first to welcome the Government's decision to restrict the disposal of nuclear waste in shallow trenches to low-level waste. I know that we are now talking in terms of overalls and the like used in the nuclear industry and in hospitals. I know that the risks are small and I welcome the Government's concession, but I and my constituents need to be told the facts in full. My constituents need even more reassurance. Until they receive it, I cannot support the Government by voting for NIREX to be given powers to drill in either South Killirigholme or Fulbeck.
I repeat what I have said before in the House: that we in Lincolnshire cannot merely say, "Put nuclear waste anywhere, except on our doorsteps, please." No Government can govern on that basis, ignoring the national interest. Ultimately, waste must be put in the best, that is the safest, geological site. The moral is clear, and has been pointed out by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and my hon.


Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg): Do as the Swedes do at Forsmark; put it in mines under the sea. Obviously, that is expensive, but if we are to have a successful, progressive nuclear industry, it must enjoy public confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) said clearly, if we ignore the need for consent by the local population, we may put our entire nuclear industry at risk. No expense can be spared in ensuring that confidence.
I know that the volume of waste is large. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment talked about its being equivalent to eight Victoria towers in the Palace of Westminster. Would he like eight Victoria towers of low-level nuclear waste in his Mole Valley constituency or next door? We cannot ignore or despise public concern. My right hon. Friend mentioned the date 2010 when the Drigg site will be full. Does that not give us time for pause and reflection?
There is a perfectly good case to be made for the continued survival and growth of our nuclear industry in terms of the need for abundant and cheap energy to ensure our competitiveness. During the past 10 years, no fatality has been directly attributed to the nuclear industry in this country. It is necessary not to depend on militants in the coalfields, and the desirability of a four-fuel economy.
Safe nuclear power can legitimately be defended as better for the environment and for conservation than traditional coal-guzzling power stations. However, the analogy of standing on the edge of a busy road holds good. I beg the Government not to rush decisions, but to conduct a massive campaign, not of propaganda, but of information, and to reflect on the words written by William Deedes this weekend. When he was the Minister of Information in the 1963 Government, he was asked to conduct a massive campaign of information, not propaganda, on joining the European Community.
No expense should be spared on the campaign to explain patiently and at length where we are now and where we are going. If necessary, we should put the declared outcome of that consultation exercise in the manifesto, and let the people decide. That is fair, honourable, democratic and popular, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall concentrate on the central issue of the debate, which is nuclear waste disposal. The spine of the debate seems to be a commitment by the Government to get waste disposal dumps under way, preferably cheaply, and certainly as quickly as possible.
The Government seem committed to that because they see it as a prelude, first to the expansion of the reprocessing industry, as if it were Britain's destiny to act as the nuclear laundry for the rest of the world, and, secondly, to an expansion of the nuclear programme. The Government see the problem of nuclear waste as a bottleneck delaying both expansions. There is no need for that impetuous commitment. The waste can be stored and Drigg is not full and has many years of service to come. The CEGB will do whatever it is told regarding storage. There is no need for this rush, but the Government are committed to it.
The Environment Select Committee has shown clearly what is wrong. Theirs is the first considered strategy with an intellectual base of research which has been presented to us. It is the first basic rethink on dumping and reprocessing. In Committeespeak, which is always fairly guarded, a strong case has been made out against both. The two are closely interconnected, whatever Ministers may say, because reprocessing produces 70 per cent. or more of the low-level waste involved. I have received confused answers from the Department of the Environment. One states that waste and reprocessed material will be placed in the dumps, and another states that they will not be, yet the answers were only six weeks apart. The two problems are interconnected.
The Select Committee's report is so good that it certainly should have been considered before any special development order on nuclear dumping sites is laid. It would be unforgivable to put the SDO first. Yet the Government are, in effect, doing just that. This is an inadequate half-baked reply to the report. We should be dealing with the report as a whole today, not merely with the little bits to which the Government have chosen to reply. The report hangs together as a whole and presents a considered new approach to the Government's strategy.
The Government, by replying to the report in bits, are changing their justifications for their nuclear waste programme, which is to continue. They are more apologetic about it, but it must continue. They make sympathetic noises about Chernobyl, but they are to soldier on with their commitment as if nothing had happened.
The Government's reply deals with only 13 of the 43 recommendations, and three of those recommendations are dealt with by half-baked responses, such as that "serious consideration should he given" to the matter. Only one recommendation has been accepted: to exclude intermediate-level waste from trench dumpings. The Government have ignored the recommendations on deep geological disposal, on dose limitations for the public, which I would have thought was central to the location and nature of the dumps, on reprocessing, on institutional responsibility, on co-ordination, on transport, on research and development and on the public.
To ignore all that is to produce a silly, shabby strategy which does not interfere with the Government's onward rush to nuclear dumping. It has led to an inadequate reply, and a messy debate tonight, because we have been mixing Chernobyl and Killingholme, CND and questions about the Select Committee's report, as if they were all one great glorious mess. The Government, backed by a three-line Whip, will refuse to change and smuggle through their rejection of what the Select Committee recommends them to do. The Government have treated the Select Committee with contempt. Their real concern is to get on with the special development order.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the rumour, and seek reassurance from the Government Front Bench, that that SDO may be laid within hours?

Mr. Mitchell: I hope that that is not so, and that the Front Bench will assure us that it is not so. It would be a dirty trick of the first magnitude to follow this inadequate debate with an SDO. The Select Committee report has knocked away the intellectual basis of the Government's policy, yet the Government persevere with their policy.
As soon as the SDO is laid, blight will begin on the four areas affected. The mere mention of the SDO means blight in terms of development, house prices and prospects, which will continue throughout the long period of research and examination until the eventual decision. That blight will be foisted on those areas without proper consultation, against the wishes of the inhabitants, and without any intellectual justification.
The Government are not doing several things mentioned in the report. It said that the Department of the Environment must be able to demonstrate to the public that the sites were selected logically and systematically. The Government will not tell us whether that is so, because they will not tell us the basis for the selection. How can local authorities object to the selection when they do not know its basis? How can they argue in those circumstances?
The report states that people need to know that the choice of their area is not simply the result of some quirk or quite extraneous factor, such as site ownership. Yet the choice is based on site ownership. It is convenient that either the Government or a NIREX partner owns all four sites. That is why South Killingholme has been picked. It is not suitable in any other way than that it is convenient for the Government because they burnt their fingers with ICI on Teeside and do not want to be in that situation again. The Minister admitted that that was the case in his presentation of the NIREX letter to the House.
The report says that the Department should shortlist, but it will not do so. It prefers to accept that work from NIREX. The report says that the Department should not go for the cheap option, but it is doing so. This is a cheap and nasty option, which is used in very few other countries. Are Sweden, Germany and other countries less immune to radiation than we are? Why have so many other countries refused to go for the option which the Department is trying to foist on us—a most dangerous option?
The report says that alpha emitters should be excluded from the waste. The Department says that there will be "very small" quantities of alpha emitters, of toxic wastes and of trace elements. It is not observing what the report wants. In other words, the Department of the Environment, in its reply to the Select Committee on the Environment, is abandoning its responsibility to protect the environment and serve the people who live in that environment. It is acting as if it were the political arm of NIREX, not a Department with responsibility for people and the environment. It has a higher destiny, role and responsibility than that.
There have been massive evasions and sudden changes in the basis of the dumping programme. The exclusion of intermediate-level wastes shows that the Department has not even thought the business through before starting the decision-making process. My constituency and those of other hon. Members where dumping is threatened get no benefit from the nuclear programme. I know that some hon. Members have said that these areas will get nuclear power, but so will London, and it is not argued that the dump should be placed in London, which uses so much of the power. No one has asked to be blighted in this way. Ministers simply want to get something—anything—decided.
What has been done in the nuclear dumping programme is foolish, unjustifiable and unforgiveable. It will not be forgiven, and it certainly will not be accepted.

Sir Trevor Skeet: There is one consolation in speaking towards the end of the debate—one can look over the labyrinth of the hours and meditate. One finds that the abolitionists have been at work. Some wish for the destruction of THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—at Sellafield, and of the nuclear fuel cycle. BNFL has secured overseas contracts worth £2·5 billion, all of which would be liable to be lost. Much of the cost of THORP has been paid for by the customers, and there are 50,000 jobs involved in BNFL investment, all of which will go by the board.
Some questions should be raised. We are likely to approach the end of the century with an incomplete electricity capacity. At the moment, we have 9,029 megawatts of nuclear capacity, and replacement is required not merely for the de-commissioning of the Magnox reactors in the 1990s but for the retirement of certain coal-fired power stations, and for the expansion of demand. I cannot see, with the long lead time involved—eight years or more—that the construction of suitable capacity by 2000 AD can be achieved. The Minister will have to work that out himself.
This has been a debate on many topics, and I know that the special development orders will come later. I hope that many of our remarks will be fully debated in about a week's time.
The Chernobyl reactors have serious defects and the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee has giver an analysis to its members of what caused the trouble in the one that exploded. How can we incriminate an industry in the United Kingdom upon the chance destruction of one Russian reactor, when some 370 reactors are operating in 25 countries and have been performing reasonably well over the past 30 years? The nuclear industry is under the shadow of political paralysis. A serious industry has become a plaything of political expediency. Confidence must be rebuilt, but not destroyed on the evidence of a single example. That would be like people saying that, because one house has burnt down, there will he devastation across the country. That is not the case.
If we have a nuclear industry, we must do something about it. The economics of necessity projected France into the nuclear age, and political expediency has bequeathed lost opportunities to the United Kingdom. The commercial reactors were first commissioned in the United Kingdom in 1962, and in France in 1965, but 24 years later, of total electricity, some 65 per cent. is generated by nuclear power in France and only 20 per cent. in the United Kingdom. For Belgium the figure is 60 per cent., for Sweden 43 per cent. and for Scotland—where power is cheaper than in England—some 40 per cent.
The total number of reactors worldwide is 374, plus another 150 under construction. Are we going to say that, because of an accident in one Russian reactor, of a type that we do not accept in the West, that had broken all the rules in the books—rules that we in the West do not break because we realise that precautions have to be taken—we have committed such a grave error?
I felt that the report of the Select Committee on the Environment would have been more balanced, and less one-sided, if it had been put together with the Select Committee on Energy. Perhaps there is no precedent for this, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy may have something to say. My right hon. Friend


has already made a useful concession in that low-level waste only is to be included in the chosen of these optional sites. It will be recollected that Bedfordshire asked for consideration of sites additional to that at Elstow. There are now four sites, so why are some hon. Members against all four of them?
The four sites must be compared on their merits. One option may be accepted, or all four may be rejected. The acceptable site, in judgment, is likely to be on the coast or on property owned by the Ministry of Defence, property that may be remote from the population centres, and therefore more acceptable than a site close to a population centre, as in Bedford. The report on the best practicable environmental options from the Department of the Environment says:
It must therefore be concluded that near-surface disposal is the BPEO for over 80 per cent. by volume of all the waste considered.
I hope that the House will consider that point, even though part of the waste has been eliminated.
Hon. Members should bear in mind that more than 50 per cent. of the waste comes from the nuclear industry but from hospitals, industrial establishments, and so on. I hope that they will bear in mind also that, because of the strict rules which have been laid down, the risk of a fatality occurring in the nuclear industry is one in 1 million, compared with the risk at work of one in 40,000 and the risk from an accident in the home of one in 20,000.
We must be constructive if we are to have any sort of nuclear policy in the United Kingdom. It is not much good destroying everything in sight and hoping that we can create another industry out of the ashes. We have been told that there are alternative energy sources—that we could utilise that waste in the sea, but we do not know how to do that and that windmills could dot the countryside, like our population, but we do not know whether that approach will succeed in meeting United Kingdom requirements.
All over the globe nuclear power stations operate safely and there is no reason to suppose at this stage that great difficulties will arise anywhere, except perhaps in the Soviet Union. There was not a single death in the Three Mile Island incident in the United States. We should consider the number of miners in the pits and the numbers who have tried to extract black oil from the North sea who have been killed.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Trevor Skeet: No, Sir. I have only a short time to speak and I must bear in mind my colleagues' requirements.
By considering the matter in a balanced way and taking the positive approach, one sees the nuclear industry in an entirely different light. Let us have wisdom, not folly.

9 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Labour's amendment calls for a safer industry, and I wholeheartedly agree. I am conscious of the fact that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and in my constituency 22,500 people are either directly or indirectly dependent on the nuclear industry. I say to those of my hon. Friends who call for the industry's closure that putting those people

on the dole, over the space of a couple of years, would have a catastrophic effect. West Cumberland could not support such unemployment, and no hon. Member has the right to impose so many redundancies on my constituents.
We in west Cumberland have been led to believe that our economy was to be built on the basis of a civil nuclear programme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made crucial decisions under a Labour Government, which included ordering two power stations. He made an even more crucial decision to develop a reprocessing plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. In the past seven years, that £1·4 billion project has transformed west Cumberland's infrastructure and industrial development.
Only last week in my constituency I attended the opening of a factory which is devoted to the development of nuclear power. About 40 per cent. of its orders come from just one project, THORP. That is the real world in which we must live. It is unreasonable for any Government to lay out a pattern of industrial development in constituencies such as mine and Copeland, and then, because of a series of incidents at Sellafield, which arose only because of management's incompetence, and because of a stupid series of decisions in the Soviet Union, which lead to the construction of the RBMK plant—which everyone now says is unsafe—seven years later place a huge question mark over the future of employment in west Cumberland.
The recommendation of some to close the reprocessing plant at Sellafield is out. We cannot proceed on that basis. The industry itself has recognised that it is necessary to tighten up. Over the years I have seen massive investment in the nuclear power industry in west Cumberland to reduce discharges. About £450 million has been invested in three plants which are now coming, on stream. By 1991, a £150 million investment will be in place in the Floc precipitation plant. which will dramatically reduce discharges. Alpha emitters will drop from 5,000 curies a year in 1973 to 20 a year by 1991. Beta emitters will drop from 200,000 in 1973 to 8,000 in 1991. This will make it one of the safest civil nuclear processing plants in the world. It is on that basis that I say to the House that we should be very careful when we consider the recommendations that are being made in some quarters. The problem is that people do not realise, understand or recognise the massive investment that is taking place to reduce the level of discharge from the nuclear industry.
I want to comment on the confused debate that takes place about the nuclear industry. The confusion that has arisen from statements that have been made by Ministers, the industry and lobbies outside over the years has led to a series of errors in the way in which people in responsible positions present their case. Too often, those errors have led to lies that have been propagated in all quarters. Too often the lie, in turn, has been manipulated to become the propaganda of the day. The problem is that the industry is riddled with misrepresentations and it is very hard to know where to start to re-establish the truth.
I have been to meetings where I have heard things said which I know have been untrue. When I have challenged them, I have been howled down by people who insist on living by the misrepresentation. In that climate of hysteria it is impossible to get over a decent and reasonable argument about the industry. I have even gone to meetings


where I have misrepresented the facts, not deliberately, but because I have been misled by people whom I regarded as responsible authorities.
There was the statement by the Energy Minister in 1983, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. When the Minister was asked whether there was a connection between the Central Electricity Generating Board's nuclear power station and the manufacture of nuclear weapons, he said:
There is no such connection. No plutonium produced in any of the CEGB's nuclear power stations has ever been used for military purposes in this country. and there are no plans to use it thus in the future. Further, no plutonium from the CEGB nuclear programme has ever been exported for use in weapons."—[Official Report, 4 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 206.]
We now know that that is not true. I have been telling people that that is the truth. How can we, who actually believe in the industry, be credible when we accept statements from the Minister at the Dispatch Box in good faith which turn out to be untrue in the course of inquiry, in this case the Sizewell inquiry?
When Lord Marshall was asked during the television programme "TV Eye" whether the plutonium had been used for military purposes, he replied:
I don't know what it was used for, but it has gone into the military stockpile. There is no secret about that.
I received an indignant letter the other day from a constituent who cannot understand why we are so inconsistent. He said:
I want to draw your attention to the article in 'Sanity' about the diversion to the military stockpile of plutonium produced in the CEGB civil reactors. I am outraged that in order to support its case for building a second reactor at Sizewell the CEGB's chief witness, John Baker, committed perjury, at least, if, as I presume, his evidence was on oath or affirmation. I feel this is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
He went on to talk about his further outrage at the fact that
the Report by the Inspector of the Sizewell Public Inquiry is bound to consider only evidence there presented.
He pleaded with me to raise this matter in the House, and I am doing so.
There are many people in my constituency who feel as strongly as that. They want to know why the case is being misrepresented in this way. I appeal to the Secretary of State. We want an open, honest and honourable regime, where all the facts are made available. It is only in that climate that we can win the argument. I say to the Secretary of State that unless that climate is created in the United Kingdom, we shall never win that argument, and in the end we shall lose the industry.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: This debate takes place in the shadow of the Chernobyl disaster. However, in the few remaining minutes available, I should like to try to broaden it out into a consideration of whether we should continue with our nuclear programme, and look at the matter on a world basis.
I have been disappointed by some of the parochialism in the contributions to the debate, particularly by the Labour party, which used to be the party of internationalism. The supply and demand for energy in this country is only a small part of the global picture. There is little doubt that the population of the world will more than double some time in the next century before it finally stabilises. The energy requirements of the developing world will increase even faster than that. The economic

growth that those countries will need to feed themselves and provide themselves with the basic necessities will require energy.
Most of the responsible studies that I have seen suppose that the global demand for energy will more than double in the next 25 years, even with the most optimistic projections on conservation. I do not see, and I have not heard during the debate, how we can get through the next 25 years without nuclear energy.
Hon. Members have said that coal will play a major part. It is true that the same studies suppose that part of the gap will be closed by the additional production and use of coal, but can we continue to plunder the earth of its fossil fuels? Apart from anything else, coal, oil and gas create their own pollution. We have heard about acid rain and the ash produced by coal-fired power stations. We have heard how the combustion of fossil fuels uses up oxygen and produces carbon dioxide. We have heard about the possible greenhouse effect, with the heating up of the planet and the consequential melting of the polar ice caps. I wish that some of the enthusiasts for the coal industry would give equal attention to some of the long-term effects of the industry that they so enthusiastically champion.
Perhaps this is the main point. Fossil fuels are exhaustible. Will we pass on to future generations an earth that has been stripped of its easily accessible fossil fuels; an earth with a teaming population with a voracious appetite for energy; an earth where we have denied people the technical means to produce the energy that they require?
That is why I support nuclear energy. It behoves the advanced industrial countries to make use of that form of power so that we can leave the fossil fuels to the less developed, poorer nations. It is not that nuclear energy is a magic solution. To me, it has always represented an opportunity, to be controlled, managed and harnessed. Of course there are risks, but some are very small. The routine, normal discharges from the nuclear power industry in this country contribute much less than 1 per cent. to the normal background radiation to which every one of us is exposed every day of our lives. That is certainly a great deal less damaging to health, and in every other way, than most other forms of industrial pollution.
I was a little nervous to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment suggest that every untoward radiological emission from the nuclear power industry should be reported and published. Does he really mean every untoward unauthorised emission? If so. he must include the coal industry. As we all know, there is a great deal of uranium ore in coal, which comes out by way of ash. If, during the normal operation of a coal-fired power station, the dust suppressors or effluent scrubbers are not working, presumably on a day-to-day basis there is a steep rise in the amount of radiation coming out of the power station. Is the Secretary of State going to put such a requirement on that industry? I would like a response on that from my right hon. Friend or from any other hon. Member who believes that the nuclear industry is unique in that respect.
Of course routine emissions should be further reduced, but if we are rational, we realise that it is better, if we are interested in saving lives, to concentrate on the many other sources of avoidable accidents caused by cars, aeroplanes and dams.
The nuclear industry in this country is spending millions of pounds on reducing the number of cancer deaths resulting from emissions from the industry from two deaths a year to one death. That money would be better spent on finding a cure for cancer, because hundreds of thousands of people all over the world would be saved.
My main concern—I am sure it is the main concern of the population—is not about routine emissions, but about the possibility of a major disaster. Almost the worst possible kind of disaster happened at Chernobyl. That was worse than the incident at Three Mile Island, where the Kemeny report showed that no one was killed as a result of the accident. We do not know the whole story about Chernobyl, but I hope that we do learn the facts. I would guess that the final death toll from the long-term cancer effects of the Chernobyl disaster will be far less than the 2,000 people who died at Bhopal in India. I do not think that we should close down the world's chemical industry because of the Bhopal disaster; equally, I do not think that we should seriously contemplate closing down the world's nuclear industry because of one accident in a badly designed reactor in the Soviet Union.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), in a brave speech, gave certain assurances about what a future Labour Government might do. In passing, he said that none of Britain's nuclear power stations was ordered by a Conservative Government. The corollary of that is, of course, that they were all ordered by a Labour Government. It is strange that Opposition Members have so dramatically shifted their position. If we are in a mess out of which we must get, it is a mess which the Opposition have created.
It is startling that the Opposition should flatly turn down the possibility of a programme of PWR reactors before the Sizewell report has been published. The Labour party is always keen to have commissions, reports and inquiries. However, it has turned down any recommendations that the Sizewell report might make, even before the scientific evidence has been sifted and published.
Of course, there are lessons for the United Kingdom to learn. The nuclear industry has the most to gain from maximum disclosure. It is my experience that the more people know about the industry, the more willing they are to replace emotion and suspicion with a rational assessment of the risks. There is a need for clear, timely and acceptable information of a technical nature and of a more simple kind that the man in the street can understand. If that means organisational changes at Government level, so be it.
When submitting parliamentary questions about the nuclear industry, I have found that they tend to be shifted and shunted around between the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We must know who is responsible for what and who will publish the information.
The nuclear industry has the most to gain from being open and accessible. It is heartening that 180,000 people annually visit Britain's nuclear power stations and Sellafield. That is not enough. In France, 500,000 people visit nuclear power plants. As a result, it would seem that 60 per cent. of French people are in favour of their nuclear programme. Another factor may be that electricity in France is 20 per cent. cheaper than in Britain.
There are, of course, still technical, political and social hurdles to be cleared if we are to have a successful and continuing nuclear power programme. It is a paradox that although a great deal is known about the physics of radiation and the engineering aspects of radioactivity and although radiation is easy to detect and measure, the public still consider it to be mysterious.
We should not fall into the trap of leaving everything to the experts. The industry must create a partnership with the public and encourage maximum discussion. Some hon. Members have their own private reasons and interests for other ways of producing energy. Some are told what to say, and perhaps even what to think, by their trade union sponsors. But the rest of us have a duty to try to explain to the public the facts behind the industry. I endorse everything that has been said this evening about the need for maximum disclosure.
I end on a note of caution. In discussing this matter there is a danger that we will shift attention from what I consider to be the main threat to mankind—the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is no direct correlation between a civil nuclear programme and a military nuclear programme. The fact that a country may possess a civil reactor does not enable it to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Similarly, the fact that a country does not possess a civil reactor does not. I am afraid, preclude it from obtaining enriched uranium or plutonium from a research reactor which is separate and distinct from any civil programme. That is the main danger.
We should be turning our attention to how we can encourage international inspection and increase the number of signatories to the non-proliferation treaty of 1968. Far too much concentration on the dangers of civil nuclear power leads to such facts being overlooked.
This has been a helpful debate, but we should never forget that the legacy that we must bequeath to the people is not one of an earth stripped of its fossil fuels. That would be far more dangerous than bequeathing to them the shorter term problem of the disposal of nuclear waste.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The magnitude of the disaster at Chernobyl has focused public attention on the issue of nuclear power. Therefore, it is right that the debate has ranged across the whole issue of Britain's nuclear power programme—the reprocessing of waste and every other aspect. It would not be possible to separate the issues of radioactive waste disposal from the power programme that creates that waste.
Public perception of nuclear power has been changing over the past few years. The Sizewell B inquiry and the publicity over Sellafield have heightened public awareness. The disaster at Chernobyl has further increased public fears. That has been underlined by many hon. Members on both sides of the House in what has been an important debate this evening.
Opinion polls show that increasing numbers of people oppose any further development of nuclear power, and nothing that the Government have done or said has allayed those fears.
The Secretary of State lost no time in making his position clear in an article in the Daily Telegraph on Friday 2 May. He and his colleagues have launched a great deal of criticism at the Soviet Union for its lack of openness. He said:


there would have been no disaster at Chernobyl had the Soviet Union followed the procedures of the democracies.
His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), described the disaster as
the failures of this furtive, secretive, over-centralised and inefficient society".
The Prime Minister joined in to emphasise Britain's openness compared with the secretive approach of the Soviet Union. Yet the self-same obsession with secrecy has dominated Britain's nuclear industry.
I can describe that attitude no better than the Financial Times did yesterday when it said that
secrecy, suppression, denial, evasion, subterfuge arrogance, and bland reassurance
have been the watchwords for the conduct of the nuclear industry in 13ritain. The reasons for that can only be, again as the Financial Times states, that the nuclear power industry is tied up with, and the by-product of, nuclear weapons.
The Secretary of State for Energy has declared that he will introduce a policy of total openness. He is reported as saying:
I desire to have no secrecy of any description, and the way to get public confidence is to make sure there is no secrecy.
He does not explain how this would be achieved other than by changing the highly technical language which the industry uses.
The undoubted links between civil and military nuclear power will make the right hon. Gentleman's task even more difficult. With Labour's policy of decommissioning Polaris and ending the Trident programme, the production of weapons grade material will be halted. The military need for secrecy will be vastly reduced and full public accountability can be achieved.
Meanwhile, will the Government take meaningful steps towards total openness by repealing the relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911? In the new spirit of international co-operation on civil nuclear power, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House whether he is prepared to grant full access to Euratom, the EEC's nuclear agency—access that has been under discussion since he was responsible for energy in a previous Tory Administration?
The Secretary of State has repeated several times that the accident at Chernobyl could not happen here. We know that the mechanics are different. The Magnox reactors share one design weakness which became evident at Chernobyl—there is no secondary containment to trap emissions in the event of an explosion rupturing the pressure vessel. Mr. Eddie Ryder, chief inspector of nuclear installations has said that the reactors
probably would not be licensed today.
There are also similarities between the RMBK and the American PWR. Both depend upon a rapid and regular flow of water under high pressure to prevent overheating. An accident in a similar reactor led to the incident at Three Mile Island. In that incident, children and pregnant women within a five-mile radius were evacuated and thousands more left of their own accord. What is important is that the presidential commission that investigated the accident concluded that the fundamental cause was operator error. Nothing can be done to prevent human error, and nothing can compensate for it.
Since the inception of nuclear power, there has been a succession of worldwide accidents—none of them as dramatic or serious as Chernobyl. Senator John Glenn has quoted from a classified United States document that there

have been 151 significant nuclear safety incidents in the past 15 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to this.
That statement refutes the claim made by the right hon. Member for Guildford in an article in the Sunday Express on 4 May that, all around the globe, nuclear power stations are being run without harm or pollution. The Government are resting on their laurels when they say that the British nuclear industry's safety record is second to none.
The Secretary of State should have made a statement to Parliament regarding the recent incident at Dungeness. Why, in the new spirit of openness, was that not done? I do not wish to add to public anxiety or to scaremonger, but the people wish to know about this issue. The Government's complacency begs many questions the answers to which the House and the public are entitled to know. Most disturbing is the reported weakness of the nuclear installations inspectorate.
Last September, The Times reported that there were serious staff shortages at the nuclear installations inspectorate. At the end of 1985, The Times stated that more than 30 per cent. of the inspectorate staff would be nearing retirement age, but that a recruitment drive during the previous three years had produced only just more than a dozen members of staff and that it took at least two years to train inspectors. The chief inspector at the time said that the Sizewell inquiry had absorbed 25 per cent of the inspectorate's time, leaving other work to be delayed or left undone.
The NII told the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations that reviewing the safety of Britain's Magnox and AGR stations was straining staff and resources. It complained that it could not pay
the desired amount of attention to industrial safety".
We are now told that none of the inspections of the Magnox stations is complete, and that there may be delays in the safety assessment of AGRs. The Secretary of State seems to find that funny, but the public are extremely concerned about the safety of the nuclear industry. They want to know why the inspectorate has been reduced and why there are insufficient people in that industry. The bland reassurances given by an Energy Minister in the House last year are not sufficient. The House must know what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the NII is adequately staffed to meet the inspectorate's great and increasing workload.
Ministers' attempts to convince Britain that all is well with nuclear power have failed, so what arguments are left? A major plank in the Government's attempt to sell nuclear power to the British people is that of cheaper electricity, yet the Department of Energy has admitted that modern coal-fired stations are cheaper to run than Magnox reactors. Recently, we have heard a lot from the Secretary of State about the benefit' of cheap electricity to the French as a result of their nuclear programme, but the reality of the French electricity industry is somewhat different.
Many people have argued that the price France is offering the United Kingdom amounts to a loss leader in an attempt to achieve at least some return on nuclear plant that would otherwise stand idle. The French electricity industry has lost money for the past two years, and its debt has soared to 200 billion francs. That has been criticised as "excessive" by the French watchdog body, which went on to state that the industry had made its investments
in the most inappropriate manner".


Financial analysts have predicted that, because of that debt burden, the French electricity industry will be forced to increase its tariffs. So much for the long-term benefits of a massive nuclear power programme.
But even if the Secretary of State's belief that nuclear power will reduce electricity costs has some foundation, the British people now say that the benefit is not worth the risks involved. Yet the Government are not even prepared to pause and take stock of the nuclear power programme. Mr. Eddie Ryder, the chief nuclear inspector, forecast that there would be a period of reflection before further decisions were taken about the future of Britain's nuclear power programme. However, he has been proved wrong, because the Government have not taken a period of reflection. He apparently also forecast that the Government's emphasis would be on persuading the public that the risk of a serious accident was so remote that it was judged acceptable when set against the benefits of nuclear power. If that is the case, the public relations exercise is clearly not working.
The Government are so wholeheartedly committed to expanding their nuclear programme that other areas of research and development have become the poor relations. Nuclear research continues to expand, with over £300 million allocated annually from a variety of sources, compared with just £14 million for renewable, or benign, energy sources. As the Energy Committee stated in its report entitled, "Energy Research, Development and Demonstration in the United Kingdom":
when the treatment of different aspects of energy R &amp; D is so glaringly inconsistent, it is difficult to be satisfied that a sensible balance of priorities has been arrived at.
Renewables are an investment for the future. We accept that they will form only a percentage of supply, but even the CEGB admitted in evidence to the Sizewell B inquiry that it could accept a contribution of up to 20 per cent. from a mix of renewable resources without operational problems. That is far from a "marginal" contribution. By the end of the decade, the question of renewable sources will have become a serious issue. In consequence, we may find that that will be very important.
When the Gas Bill was in Committee, we attempted to induce the Government to oblige the British Gas Corporation to take responsibility for energy conservation. Once again, their commitment to the fifth fuel proved to be shabby as they totally rejected that possibility. Equally shabby is the Government's commitment to the coal industry. We have supplies of coal to last for hundreds of years; we have the technology to ensure that coal-fired power stations are environmentally acceptable; and we have the technology to turn coal into oil and gas. Despite that, the coal industry is being run down by the Government.
We must have an energy policy based on coal, using the most up-to-date technology. Work on pressurised fluidised bed combustion must be accelerated. There must be a major programme to install desulphurisaton processes in existing coal and oil-fired power stations which, while creating a large number of jobs, would also reduce acid rain emissions dramatically.
It is clear that the Government lack the will to develop new, safe and clean ways of providing Britain with sources of energy. They also lack any coherent approach to Britain's energy needs. We believe that the country's

dependence on nuclear power must be reduced, and that our future lies predominantly with the use of coal as its major source of energy and as part of a planned national energy policy.
We would ensure that full reviews were carried out of the Magnox stations and that those that had reached the end of their useful design life were decommissioned and phased out. Nuclear power cannot be halted tomorrow, so we would have a planned reduction in Britain's dependence on nuclear power. Any replacement power station capacity will be provided by constructing new coal-fired power stations, using all the latest technology. The costs involved in this must be met in order to safeguard people's welfare and the environment. We remain totally opposed to the construction of all PWR power stations, at Sizewell or anywhere else in Britain. We will not consider the introduction of the fast reactor.
Following the Chernobyl disaster, which the world has shared, there should be no question but that the Government must pause in any expansion of the nuclear power programme. As a matter of urgency, the Government must ensure that any safety reviews of Magnox stations that have been completed are published, that those still outstanding are accelerated, and that the nuclear installations inspectorate is strengthened. They must halt the production of weapons-grade material, from whatever source.
The Government should accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment for an urgent economic re-appraisal of the THORP at Sellafield, but we recognise that Sellafield will be necessary when decommissioning takes place. The Government maintain that jobs will be lost if they do not go ahead with the PWR. Manufacturing industry disagrees. The Government have the facility to construct a 900 MW coal-fired station, with potential for export demand, which would ensure that jobs were safeguarded.
The Government must end the uncertainty and the speculation about the construction of the PWR. They should call in Sir Frank Layfield and Lord Marshall and tell them that the plans to build a PWR in Britain will not go ahead. That is what the Labour party stands for, and what we advocate tonight.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I will want later to compare the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) with the opening speech made by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), because there were considerable differences between the speeches.
In the debate there have been a whole range of differing views on both sides of the House. A number of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies where the storage of nuclear waste is being considered as a possibility understandably made vigorous and lively speeches suggesting various options to the system that is currently proposed.
It is interesting that the hon. Members for Copeland, for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) have constituencies or trade unions that are closely connected with the nuclear industry. With their knowledge and experience, all three were positive in their approach to the nuclear industry—as positive as were the last Labour Government.
In fairness to the last Labour Government, although we have been criticised by the Opposition Front Bench for our failure to go ahead with any form of nuclear reactor in the last seven years, which is a perfectly reasonable criticism, we cannot make the same criticism of the last Labour Government. It was that Labour Government who first embarked upon one particular form of reactor that they later decided to abandon. They then gave the order for two further AGR power stations now in the course of construction and moving towards completion. They opened the view that we should consider carefully the possibility of a PWR, and gave the go-ahead for the major investment programme of BNFL. I must confess, therefore, that in their contribution to the nuclear programme of the country the Labour Government of that era—with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) playing a distinguished role in it—were very positive.
One must ask whether the Labour party now uses the argument: as we are self-sufficient in energy, why bother with nuclear energy? Why was it in that period, when we were fast moving towards self-sufficiency in energy, that the Labour Government decided objectively, reasonably and obviously after careful consideration that that was the right course to pursue?
In the debate, therefore, we have seen a recognition of the deep anxiety about the events that have taken place in the Soviet Union. As one future benefit of those events, it now appears likely that the Soviet Union will move to a greater sense of international collaboration on these matters than hitherto. I am not surprised at that. In the talks that I had in Moscow with the new personalities in the Government led by Mr. Gorbachev, those new personalities were very aware that their ambitious plans for the growth of the economy of the Soviet Union much depended upon a massive growth in the energy supplies that the Soviet Union was able to produce.
Unlike the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union has the benefits of massive coal resources and of oil and gas. It is a country that one can argue is self-sufficient in energy without nuclear energy. However, the Soviet Government have objectively decided that, in the massive expansion of energy production that they want between now and the end of the century, the fastest area of production required is in nuclear energy. The Soviet Government have done this for a variety of reasons, including what they consider is the best means of taking energy to the various parts of the Soviet Union and the general efficiency of that method. They were anxious to see the know-how of the West in terms of safety, and the disposal of nuclear waste is a matter on which they wish to collaborate and towards which they wish to work.
I am pleased to say that the Soviet Union has opened its information to the International Atomic Energy Agency after the initial clampdown. The leading figures in the agency have visited the site. They communicated with me today to tell me that the Soviet Union has agreed to give the fullest possible report on the accident and all the lessons to be learnt from it. A conference will be organised by the agency—it hopes that it will take place in June—during which the Soviet Union will present all the facts of which it is aware.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that he has been in favour of the civil use of nuclear energy and considers that international collaboration is an important element, which is the view that was taken at the

Tokyo summit. Eastern European countries were critical of the lack of immediate information that was available from the Soviet Union, and I hope that as a result of the incident we can substantially improve international collaboration.
Criticism has been expressed from the Opposition Front Bench about the manner in which information was provided during the potential and actual event of radiation in Britain. Anyone who considers objectively the way in which Ministers concerned with nuclear energy quickly took the monitoring action that was necessary and the publishing of that material will accept that the Government need make no apology for their action. It was right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with his specific responsibilities, led the Government team that was responsible for the monitoring. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has knowledge and knowhow of identifying radiation levels on land and in the sea, and it started its operations as soon as we had knowledge of the accident. The Health and Safety Executive and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate joined in to ensure that all necessary measures were taken.
Unlike other countries, responsibilities for inspection are with a range of Departments, and we should reflect on the wisdom of this approach. It is right that environmental protection should be with the Department of the Environment, which should have responsibility for ensuring that standards are maintained. Land, sea or food pollution is a matter for the Department which has the expertise and independence to deal with the problem administratively. It is right that the Health and Safety Executive, which has considerable independence, should lay down standards for safety factors.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Walker: I shall not give way, because I agreed that the time allocated to the Front Bench replies should be reduced substantially. I think that in fairness the hon. Gentleman should allow me to continue.
It was suggested by the hon. Member for Copeland, when he opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, that as soon as the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), was published, I issued a statement condemning it. That is untrue. I refused to make any comment on the report until the Government had prepared a proper reply.

Mr. Roberts: rose

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend and I were involved together in work on environmental matters way back in the 1960s. I have immense respect and regard for his diligence and ability in these matters. He knows that shortly after receiving his report I had discussions with him about it and listened to the constructive case that is set out in the report.

Mr. Roberts: rose

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend set out his views on compensation for those who bear the brunt of developments of the sort that we have been discussing this evening. My hon. Friend knows from his past ministerial experience that there are complications and difficulties. When one is dealing with straight compensation matters, one finds that, although something may be unfortunate, in its judgment, for the particular household concerned, it does not have a bearing on the valuation of the property.


If one considers the enormous development at Sellafield and the very large work force that is employed there—and likewise at Heathrow—the result has been an increase in property prices. NIREX has stated that it wants objectively to examine the contribution that it can make and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Government will carefully consider any proposals that are made.
My hon. Friend also referred to the importance of adopting Rolls-Royce standards for the treatment of all forms of waste. I understand that point of view. My hon. Friend's report shows that he agrees that Rolls-Royce standards are very much a means of giving confidence to the public.
I had discussions with British Nuclear Fuels plc last week and I understand that it considers that there are ways in which it can improve considerably its performance.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Walker: Can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Give way."] It is important that the international energy scene should be put into context. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the international energy scene. What has been absent from this debate—

Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister refuses to give way. He is misleading the House and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Roberts: It is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Walker: One of the factors that has been left out of this debate is a consideration of the international position.

Mr. Roberts: rose—

Mr. Walker: Can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Give way."] That element has been absent from this Debate. Naturally we have considered the immediate effects of the incident in the Soviet Union and its impact upon public opinion. But can I say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anybody who studies future essential needs knows that of all forms of energy known to man, that which is most likely to be an absolute necessity in the 21st century is nuclear energy, provided that it can be safely produced and safely presented. Can I just say—[HON. MEMBERS: "No.") It is estimated that by the year 2025 the world's population will have increased from 4·7 billion to 8 billion. On any estimate of nuclear and other forms of energy requirements, if we look at available fossil fuels it appears that, if we are to keep energy supplies at today's levels, by the year 2025, taking into account all the conservation measures that can be adopted, a ninefold increase in nuclear energy worldwide will be needed.
We have to contrast the two speeches that were made from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Copeland said that it is essential to keep available the nuclear option. However, the right hon. Member for Salford, East said that this is the time to phase out the nuclear industry in this country. The Labour party must make it clear to the country whether or not it wishes to

abolish the nuclear industry in this country. If it does. I hope that the right hon. Member for Salford, East will call together the shop stewards of the nuclear industry that he brought to my Department a few months ago to complain about the lack of expansion of the nuclear industry. I hope that he will say that now that there has been an incident in the Soviet Union, he has decided to phase out 100,000 jobs in the British nuclear industry. That is the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing, in sharp contrast with those who have a deep knowledge of the nuclear industry, such as the hon. Members for Copeland and for Tottenham.
The hon. Member for Tottenham raised an important aspect about Sizewell, PWRs and fast breeder reactors—it was the quality of engineering. As we all know, his union has made a great contribution to the nuclear industry, and considers that it is an industry of the future. The engineering industry believes that if we follow the suggestion of the Labour party that no decisions are made about the nuclear industry in the foreseeable future, as anyone connected with the industry knows, its existence in this country will disappear.
The Government have correctly decided to take great care before making any decisions on a nuclear reactor. The argument that the Government have been aggressively pro-nuclear is demolished by the manner in which we set up the Sizewell inquiry. It is remarkable that with an inquiry of that quality and duration, the Opposition have decided to ignore its findings even before they are published.
It is important to recognise that, of course, the Government would like the nuclear industry to succeed. We believe that of all the forms of energy known to man, nuclear energy is likely to be the front runner in the next century. However, it can be that only if it proves to be safe and if the engineering standards applied to it are of the highest quality. It is only on that basis that any democratic Government can pursue nuclear energy. This Government, more than any post-war Government, have taken the most enormous care to give every consideration to the quality of decision taking. Therefore, we await the Sizewell inquiry report, which is expected in September. We will study what comes before the International Atomic Energy Agency as a result of what has happened in the Soviet Union. We will then carefully discuss and debate the potentiality of nuclear energy in the years to come.
I believe and hope that we can secure standards of safety and environmental quality that will make that form of energy available to mankind. I hasten to add that if we fail in that task, we must not underestimate the damage that will be done to living standards throughout the world as the fossil sources of energy decline and there is no alternative form of energy. The hon. Member for Workington was correct to recognise that, in reality, it is the developing Third world countries, with the improving living standards of people now devoid of energy, that are dependent upon the success of nuclear energy.
Trying to achieve that success, in standards of environmental quality, total safety and good engineering skills, is the objective of the Government. One of my hon. Friends pleaded that one cannot pursue support for nuclear energy, if, at that time, public opinion is not with one. That is the basis of democracy, and Governments can be defeated if public opinion is not behind them. If any Government failed to put forward the public's basic need for nuclear energy, they would be guilty of a wrongful act towards the future of western civilisation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 349.

Division No. 175]
[10 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foster, Derek


Alton, David
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freud, Clement


Ashdown, Paddy
Garrett, W. E.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Godman, Dr Norman


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gourlay, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Barron, Kevin
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hancock, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bermingham, Gerald
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blair, Anthony
Heffer, Eric S.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Caborn, Richard
Janner, Hon Greville


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
John, Brynmor


Campbell, Ian
Johnston, Sir Russell


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Canavan, Dennis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kennedy, Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clarke, Thomas
Lambie, David


Clay, Robert
Lamond, James


Clelland, David Gordon
Leadbitter, Ted


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ronald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cohen, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbett, Robin
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Craigen, J. M.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Dr John
McTaggart, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Deakins, Eric
Martin, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Michie, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mikardo, Ian


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forrester, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David





Park, George
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Parry, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Patchett, Terry
Snape, Peter


Pavitt, Laurie
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Penhaligon, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pike, Peter
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Randall, Stuart
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Raynsford, Nick
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Redmond, Martin
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wallace, James


Robertson, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wareing, Robert


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael


Rooker, J. W.
White, James


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Gordon


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Mark Fisher.


Silkin, Rt Hon J.



Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Ashby, David
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Clegg, Sir Walter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cockeram, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Benyon, William
Coombs, Simon


Best, Keith
Cope, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cranborne, Viscount


Blackburn, John
Critchley, Julian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Crouch, David


Body, Sir Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dover, Den


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dunn, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brinton, Tim
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Eggar, Tim


Brooke, Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Browne, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bruinvels, Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Farr, Sir John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Favell, Anthony


Buck, Sir Antony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Budgen, Nick
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher, Alexander






Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forth, Eric
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lester, Jim


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Freeman, Roger
Lightbown, David


Fry, Peter
Lilley, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Galley, Roy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lord, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lyell, Nicholas


Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Goodlad, Alastair
Macfarlane, Neil


Gow, Ian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gower, Sir Raymond
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Grant, Sir Anthony
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Greenway, Harry
Maclean, David John


Gregory, Conal
McLoughlin, Patrick


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Grist, Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Ground, Patrick
Madel, David


Grylls, Michael
Major, John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Malins, Humfrey


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Malone, Gerald


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maples, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Marland, Paul


Hannam, John
Marlow, Antony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Harris, David
Mates, Michael


Harvey, Robert
Maude, Hon Francis


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Mellor, David


Hawksley, Warren
Merchant, Piers


Hayes, J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hayward, Robert
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miscampbell, Norman


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Heddle, John
Moate, Roger


Henderson, Barry
Monro, Sir Hector


Hickmet, Richard
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon P, (Chester)


Hirst, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mudd, David


Holt, Richard
Neale, Gerrard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Needham, Richard


Howard, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Newton, Tony


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Norris, Steven


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Osborn, Sir John


Irving, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pawsey, James


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Key, Robert
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Pollock, Alexander


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Porter, Barry


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Portillo, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Knox, David
Powley, John


Lang, Ian
Price, Sir David


Latham, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Lawler, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawrence, Ivan
Pym, Rt Hon Francis





Raffan, Keith
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Terlezki, Stefan


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Renton, Tim
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thornton, Malcolm


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'eath)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waddington, David


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walters, Dennis


Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speed, Keith
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spencer, Derek
Whitfield, John


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Whitney, Raymond


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Jerry


Squire, Robin
Wilkinson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Steen, Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Stern, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Woodcock, Michael


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stokes, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Taylor, John (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 205.

Division No. 176]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Blackburn, John


Amess, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brinton, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Browne, John


Bellingham, Henry
Bruinvels, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Bryan, Sir Paul


Benyon, William
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Best, Keith
Buck, Sir Antony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Budgen, Nick






Bulmer, Esmond
Harvey, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hirst, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Holt, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Couchman, James
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Hunter, Andrew


Crouch, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irving, Charles


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton. Lord J.
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dunn, Robert
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knox, David


Farr, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Favell, Anthony
Latham, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawler, Geoffrey


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lester, Jim


Forth, Eric
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lightbown, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lilley, Peter


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Galley, Roy
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lyell, Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McCrindle, Robert


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Neil


Goodhart, Sir Philip
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gow, Ian
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gower, Sir Raymond
McLoughlin, Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony
Maclean, David John


Greenway, Harry
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Gregory, Conal
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
McQuarrie, Albert


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Madel, David


Grist, Ian
Major, John


Ground, Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Grylls, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maples, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marland, Paul


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marlow, Antony


Hanley, Jeremy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hannam, John
Mates, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Maude, Hon Francis


Harris, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian





Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mellor, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Merchant, Piers
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spencer, Derek


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Squire, Robin


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Steen, Anthony


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stern, Michael


Mudd, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Newton, Tony
Sumberg, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Norris, Steven
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oppenheim, Phillip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Terlezki, Stefan


Osborn, Sir John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Ottaway, Richard
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Thornton, Malcolm


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Trippier, David


Pollock, Alexander
Trotter, Neville


Porter, Barry
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powley, John
Viggers, Peter


Price, Sir David
Waddington, David


Prior, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Walters, Dennis


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Watson, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitfield, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Whitney, Raymond


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wilkinson, John


Rost, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Woodcock, Michael


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Yeo, Tim


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Ayes


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bagier, Gordon A, T.


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Ashdown, Paddy
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)






Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Anthony
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Forrester, John


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freud, Clement


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
George, Bruce


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman


Bruce, Malcolm
Gould, Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hancock, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Thomas
Hickmet, Richard


Clay, Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clelland, David Gordon
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Craigen, J. M.
Janner, Hon Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cunningham, Dr John
John, Brynmor


Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Donald
Lambie, David


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Dormand, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted


Douglas, Dick
Leighton, Ronald


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Livsey, Richard


Eadie, Alex
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ellis, Raymond
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Ewing, Harry
McKelvey, William


Faulds, Andrew
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor





McNamara, Kevin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McTaggart, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Martin, Michael
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Meadowcroft, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, William
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Snape, Peter


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Nellist, David
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Park, George
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Patchett, Terry
Tinn, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Penhaligon, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael


Prescott, John
White, James


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Redmond, Martin
Wilson, Gordon


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Winnick, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Mark Fisher.


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, J. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the steps taken by the Government to keep the House and the public informed of the consequences for the United Kingdom of the accident at the nuclear plant at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: endorses the Government's commitment to the safety of the complete nuclear fuel cycle in the United Kingdom: and in that context approves the Government's first stage response on 2nd May to the Environment Committee's report on radioactive waste (House of Commons Paper No. 191), setting out as it does the principles against which current proposals to dispose of low-level radioactive waste can be considered.

Hong Kong

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.
The draft nationality order carries out arrangements which have been fully considered and debated over many months and it represents the culmination of a long period of careful work. It stems from the joint declaration with the Chinese Government, which, with the wholehearted approval of the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed in December 1984. It continued with the Hong Kong Act 1985, which again the House fully debated and approved. It led from there to our debate in January, when there was a full opportunity to consider the detailed arrangements which are now incorporated in the draft order. Equally full and detailed discussions have been held in Hong Kong.
It is right that the matter should have been dealt with in this careful way, because fair and comprehensive nationality arrangements are vital to the future of people in Hong Kong and to the successful carrying out of the agreement with the Chinese.
I shall not describe in detail the provisions of the order, because they are in the form that the House considered in January, apart from one or two drafting and minor technical amendments. It establishes those who, because of their connection with Hong Kong, will cease to be British dependent territories citizens in 1997, and it gives them the right to acquire British national (overseas) status—BN(O)—and the passport that goes with it. The order makes provisions also to guard against statelessness.
Our proposals in the order are fully consistent with our obligations under the joint declaration and properly exercise our powers under the Hong Kong Act. I think that this has been generally accepted in earlier debates in the House, as it has been in Hong Kong. Following their debate last December, however, the Hong Kong Legislative and Executive Councils made three points which have attracted support in the House and in another place. They were, first, that there should be an endorsement in British national (overseas) passports to show that the holder did not require a visa or entry certificate to visit the United Kingdom; secondly, that former service men in Hong Kong who fought in its interests during the second world war should be granted British citizenship; and, thirdly, that British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong who were not ethnically Chinese, and who had not exercised their right to be British nationals (overseas), and who had no other form of nationality, should be granted British citizenship in 1997 rather than British overseas citizenship.
The Government agreed to consider each of those points fully. We have done so with great care over many months, listening to the many representations made. As a result, as the House will know from my announcement on 23 April, we have met two of the three requests.
First, for the British national overseas passport, we will place in each an endorsement which will read:
In accordance with the United Kingdom immigration rules the holder of this passport does not require an entry certificate or visa to visit the United Kingdom.

An explanatory leaflet will be given to each passport holder, which will make it clear that we welcome visitors from Hong Kong and which will set out the holder's position under the present immigration rules. I am glad that this concession has been welcomed by the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils.
Secondly, we have also agreed to meet the concern for ex-service men. There are about 270, and of those, 60 or so are eligible to apply for registration as British citizens under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. I am ready to consider sympathetically any applications from these ex-service men. To meet the needs of the others, I have agreed also that any of the 270 may he accepted here for settlement, together with their dependants. The Unofficial Members of the Legislative and Executive Councils have also welcomed these arrangements.
We considered long and hard the third request—that British citizenship should be granted to British dependent territories citizens who were not ethnically Chinese and who might risk statelessness after 1997. We accept fully our commitments to this community, and we intend to honour them in full, but we must also consider the implications of going as far as they have asked. We believe that such a step is not necessary to provide them with the proper measure of security they need, and that it would carry considerable implications in the years ahead which we could not responsibly ignore.
We have approached the problem with two firm principles in mind. The first is that no British dependent territories citizen should have any reason to fear becoming stateless in 1997; nor after 1997 should their children, or their grandchildren. The provision of British overseas citizenship for any who would otherwise be stateless because they have not taken up their right to be a British national (overseas), and the assurances of British overseas citizenship for the children and grandchildren of British dependent territories citizens, fully meet these commitments.
Our second principle is that we should ensure that people settled in Hong Kong can continue to have the right to live there. No form of British nationality can guarantee this after 1997. It has been secured, however, through the agreement with the Chinese. That guarantees rights of abode in Hong Kong for all non-ethnic Chinese who have made it their permanent home. The agreement is binding in international law and, to make it binding in local law, the provisions are to be written into a basic law governing the Hong Kong special administrative region.
Our proposals fully meet our commitments to provide all British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong with the right to a home, with a clear form of nationality and with assurances for their children and grandchildren.
To go further and grant British citizenship in the way suggested, would take the problem out of the immediate context of Hong Kong and risk setting up pressures and uncertainties which could only have damaging and undesirable consequences elsewhere. We must remember that there are about two million British overseas citizens in various parts of the world, of whom about 800,000 have that as their only form of citizenship, We must think of the message which they might receive, and the doubts and uncertainties which would be raised, if we were to accept that British overseas citizenship was not adequate for some people in Hong Kong.
We must also take into account the sensible principle of the British Nationality Act, which the House approved in 1981, that British citizenship should reflect a person's close personal links with the United Kingdom. And, as British citizenship carries with it the right to come and settle in this country, we must think of our commitment to a fair and firm immigration policy. There are at present about 11,500 people in Hong Kong who in 1997 might seek to benefit under the statelessness provisions, and we do not know what might have affected the size of the commitment by then.
There are those who argue that, given the circumstances of Hong Kong, it would be prudent to grant these people British citizenship in case circumstances there were to change and they had to leave. If this were to be the case there would no doubt need to be a good deal of reconsideration and readjustment, but it is not sensible to go into the next 11 years planning for the worst, and we have no reason to do so.
I understand the concerns of this community, and that is why we have made it clear that if any British nationals were at any time to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically their admission to the United Kingdom on a cases by case basis. Mr. John Swaine, the convenor of the Legislative Council's ad hoc group on the order, has been quoted as welcoming this as a strong moral commitment to this community. I am sure that he was right to do so.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the essence of the Minister's comments that he has rejected the third category of argument, even though it applies to a relatively small number of people, because of the relevance of the other, up to 2 million, elsewhere in the world?

Mr. Hurd: That is part of the argument. Of the 2 million, 800,000 have no other form of citizenship. If we were to take action which would devalue British overseas citizenship, it would have serious effects on them. That was one of the arguments. I have gone on to deploy another connected with immigration. I have gone beyond the point on which the hon. Gentleman was fastening to explain the case by case approach which any Government would have to adopt if the need arose. I was quoting the welcome for this undertaking which has been given by Mr. Swaine in Hong Kong.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Notwithstanding any commitment that might be made for the future, will the Minister recognise that the result of Government policy will be to give 10,000 people in Hong Kong a right of abode in Hong Kong without citizenship, or citizenship in the United Kingdom without right of abode? If the very least of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents came to see him at his surgery to complain about it, would he not do all in his power to fight 'against such a monstrous injustice? Why, therefore, is he condemning no fewer than 10,000 citizens in Hong Kong to such inadequacy in the future?

Mr. Hurd: I would fight against any injustice, but I would try to establish the facts in my own mind before doing so. Through the connection between the agreement

with China and the contents of the order, we are providing a right of abode and British overseas citizenship to those who do not take out the BN(O) passport. For the reasons that I have given, if the hon. Gentleman had been listening, I believe that that provides the best assurance for a secure and confident future for the people of Hong Kong, including the 11,500 about whom the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned. He does neither them nor Hong Kong any service by misinterpreting a matter which has been so carefully and strongly discussed and debated in the colony, where there is a growing understanding that the arrangement we have made is sensible.
There are already signs of continuing encouragement about the future of Hong Kong. The Joint Liaison Group continues to work well. It has made arrangements to ensure that after 1997 Hong Kong keeps its place in the world trading community, and it has also formally agreed the terms of the right of abode endorsement which I have just mentioned in the BN(O) passport.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: In writing to the Hong Kong Indian Association on 30 April, the Home Secretary said that the Government would have further discussions with the Government of China. Are the discussions which have already taken place the limit of such discussions, or does he expect to have further discussions?

Mr. Hurd: The discussions which have already taken place have led to the position which I am putting to the House. Nothing that I am saying now will contradict or come as a surprise to the Chinese Government. I have reported to the House on the link between the agreement and the discussions with the People's Republic of China and the order before the House.
Many of us have from our own experiences deep admiration and respect for Hong Kong. The Government have made a significant contribution to establishing and building up that confidence by carefully measured steps, not all easy to arrive at, but many of which have been considered and approved by the House. The nationality order represents another important step along the way. The arrangements that we have made for the ethnic minorities, as for all other British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong, fully honour our commitments. They offer a sound and responsible basis for continued confidence and security in the future.
I believe that the order, as part of the series of measured steps. will serve the people of Hong Kong well. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: This is the second occasion in recent months on which the House has debated the citizenship of Hong Kong consequent upon the transfer of that territory to China in 1997. May I repeat what many hon. Members and I said during our debate in January—that nothing that we say tonight should undermine our confidence in the future of Hong Kong after 1997. when it becomes part of China. Confidence is a delicate matter, and we owe it to the people of Hong Kong to encourage a state of confidence and optimism about the future. Those are not merely words: having visited Hong Kong last year. I believe that there are good chances of a successful and prosperous future for the people of Hong Kong after 1997.
We are debating the citizenship and status of those who are not ethnic Chinese and, therefore, not automatically


Chinese citizens and will not automatically have the ability to become Chinese citizens after 1997. It must be said that, after 1997, Hong Kong will be unique. I can think of no territory in the history of the British empire—or at the end of the British empire—that has been transferred to another country as Hong Kong will be transferred in about 11 years' time. That is why this is an especially difficult problem of citizenship which would not apply if Hong Kong became a completely independent territory, as so many parts of the British Commonwealth have become in the past 30 years.
As the Home Secretary said, in recent months, the Government have been pressed on three issues. He mentioned the endorsement in the passport. Of course, that is welcome for what it is worth, but we must be honest with ourselves and with the people of Hong Kong and say that that endorsement is simply a reiteration of the present position. It adds not one jot to the rights of the people of Hong Kong; it simply puts into their passports rights that they should have anyway. The people of Hong Kong have told us about their difficulties when they arrive at British airports as tourists or on business. The hassles to which they are subjected have given rise to the feeling that their passports should contain something to protect them.
There may be a change of heart at Heathrow airport, and the endorsement may give them protection, but the Home Secretary knows that the Hong Kong Government advise their citizens visiting Britain to obtain entry clearance certificates first to save themselves difficulties at the point of entry. I hope that the endorsement will have the effect that the Home Secretary claims, but let us be honest and admit to ourselves that it simply reiterates the present position.
The concession granted to former prisoners of war is welcome. We argued their case in the previous debate, and we are glad that the Government have acceded to our requests.
The ethnic minorities are unhappy about the Government's proposals, the more so as the Government revealed those proposals in answer to a parliamentary question a couple of weeks ago. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Council of Hong Kong Indian Organisations has lobbied hard and effectively to express its anxiety about the position of its members after 1997. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Legislative Council in Hong Kong made strong and clear recommendations.
There have been other representations. I received a telegram from Sir Roger Lobo, an eminent man of Portuguese origin in Hong Kong, from which I quote:
The British Government's failure to consider minorities' case was bitterly disappointing to those non-ethnic Chinese Hong Kong citizens and this includes people of European ancestry who have lived here for generations. They feel betrayed.
He mentions the position of Portuguese people there and comments on Britain and Portugal celebrating the 600th anniversary of the treaty of Windsor, which was signed on 9 May 1386. He feels that the Government proposals leave most of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong with an uncertain future there. That is a powerful telegram. I am sure that the Home Secretary has received the same message sent directly to him at the Home Office.
We are talking about the nature of British responsibility for these people in Hong Kong. The Home Secretary has said that they will have a right of abode there as decided by the agreement with the Government of China. But, of

course, giving them British overseas citizenship status in Hong Kong, albeit with the right of abode which is the subject of an international agreement. does not give those people in Hong Kong from the ethnic minorities equal and full citizenship with other people in Hong Kong. The Home Secretary knows, as we know, that British overseas citizenship is not citizenship in any true sense of the word. It is a term devised in the British Nationality Act 1981 to get us out of one of the embarrassing legacies of empire. It has now been applied with a difference to the situation in Hong Kong, the difference being that it will be able to be passed on for a couple of generations. The Home Secretary said that he had no wish to devalue British overseas citizenship. For the life of me, I cannot understand how something that has so little value can be devalued any further.
If I may turn to a particular point of substance and one to which the Home Secretary referred, in reply to a written question and, indeed, again today, the Home Secretary said:
If, however, any British national were in the future to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically the case for admission to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 148.]
It is not being suggested that there would be obvious pressure for these people to leave Hong Kong. Surely the problem is rather this. Because they will not be full and equal citizens after 1997 with the majority of the people of Hong Kong, their position will be difficult. It may well become untenable while they are in Hong Kong.
If the Home Secretary used his words carefully, as we must assume that he did, he was giving only a very slight concession to people under pressure to leave, not people who find that, because of their unequal citizenship status, they are having an unhappy and miserable time in Hong Kong. I hope. like everybody, that it will not come to that. However, if it does, those people surely are entitled to greater safeguards.
Because there are fears to that effect, the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong have been arguing that they should be given some sort of assurance before 1997, not after that date. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has received a copy of the editorial of the South China Morning Post of Monday 12 May. Referring to the ethnic minorities of Hong Hong, it says:
As has been repeatedly stated, there is little interest in leaving at present. The minorities are on the whole contented with life in Hong Kong, regard this as their home, are mostly well entrenched in business or the civil service or are long-term employees with their roots here. Their only desire is to have the right at some future date to emigrate if conditions in Hong Kong make it impossible to stay. That, coupled with the right to enter as visitors to the UK without visas, would be an acceptable compromise for the majority, if the British Government is unwilling or unable to take all.
That is only the view of one newspaper, albeit the leading English language newspaper in Hong Kong, but it suggests that at the least the Government could have gone a bit further.

Dr. John Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend in the case that he has made about the unsatisfactory nature of the order. In view of the fact that the Government are now a lame duck Government fast approaching the end of their term of office,—only a couple of Conservative Members are making gesticulations, and other Conservative Members are being very quiet about this—


will my hon. Friend in the next Labour Government reconsider the order in the light of the changing circumstances and the situation at that time?

Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely what I was about to say. It is right that I should state what the next Labour Government's policy will be—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but the policies of the next Labour Government will be with us pretty soon. I am sure that Conservative Members are aware of that. The Opposition have a commitment to repeal the Immigration Act and the Nationality Act and to replace those measures with non-discriminatory legislation. This will involve inevitably a wide-ranging review of immigration and nationality policy. As part of that review, we shall take into account the requests and claims of various groups, including those of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. We shall take those into account as the basis of a just and non-discriminatory immigration and nationality policy.
The critical date for the people of Hong Kong is 1 July 1997, and there will be a Labour Government in Britain many years before then. We shall be starting—

Mr. Hal Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dubs: I shall not give way. Other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to tresspass on their time.
We shall be starting the process of reviewing immigration and nationality policy in about two years' time, when we shall be sitting on the Government Benches.
It would not have taken much for the Government this evening to show a little awareness of the real concerns of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. I do not think that the Home Secretary showed any real concern. He said that he had thought about the matter and had decided that the answer would be no. Some of the assurances that he tried to give the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong sounded singularly unconvincing. Indeed, it sounded as if the right hon. Gentleman was not convinced of what he was saying.
The ethnic minorities have the right to say that the Government have turned a deaf ear to their plea, and that is not good enough. For that reason, we shall be voting against the order.

Sir Peter Blaker: My family connection with Hong Kong goes back 75 years, and in the previous Parliament, for a couple of years, I was the Minister concerned with Hong Kong at the time when the negotiations which led to the successful agreement that was initialed in 1984 were in their early stages. I take a great interest, therefore, in the success of Hong Kong and in the welfare and preservation of the way of life of all its people of whatever race. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the decision that he has taken and on the terms of the order.
I pressed my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the endorsing of passports and on the matter of prisoners of war when we debated the draft order dealing with these issues, and I want especially to express my gratitude for the steps that have been taken on those two points. They

have not been easy matters. I know that the drafting of the wording to go into the passport was not easy but, I believe that the Government have come to the right solution.
Another matter which caused anxiety some time ago was whether the BNO passport would be acceptable at all to various countries. We no longer hear about that. I quote it as an example of something which caused considerable concern in Hong Kong but which has now been shown to have had no substance. Those who live in the intense, active and intelligent society of Hong Kong sometimes get themselves into a state of unnecessary anxiety.
The most difficult question relates to the ethnic minorities. The Council of Hongkong Indian Associations will, I know, be very disappointed by the decision. As has already been mentioned, it has lobbied effectively. I want to make four points about this matter.
First, it is not correct to allege, as the Council of Hongkong Indian Associations has alleged, that the Government have broken their promises. It is perfectly clear from what was said in the previous debate that no promises have been broken. I speak with some feeling, because after the debate a few months ago on the draft order I was accused of having broken a promise. That statement was entirely without foundation. I believe it does not help the case of the Council of Hongkong Indian Associations if it makes reckless accusations of that kind.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the numbers involved. The Council of Hongkong Indian Associations referred to 10,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department referred to 11,500. But is this the full picture? There must be people who do not hold BDTC passports but who are entitled to apply for BDTC passports. Moreover, will not the children of the 11,500 be entitled to BDTC passports before 1997? They will swell the number to well over 11,500. It is unrealistic to refer to 11,500 or 10,000. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate will say something about that question. Thirdly, I welcome the language used by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his answer to a parliamentary question on 23 April. In particular I welcome his statement that
we have concluded that the granting of British citizenship is not justified in the present circumstances."—[Official Report, 23 April, 1986; Vol. 96, c. 147.]
I emphasise the words "in the present circumstances."
That answer appears to me to keep the door a bit open. I welcome also the words that have already been quoted about the possibility that British nationals might come under pressure to leave Hong Kong. They show that the Government's mind is not closed. It is right to remind the people of Hong Kong that there are still 11 years to go before 1997. If circumstances change drastically during that time—I do not believe that they will—this matter can be looked at again. I want to emphasise to my friends in Hong Kong that the language used by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his parliamentary answer is, in the British parliamentary context, very important and significant. They are not empty promises. They will be regarded as very important, if ever they should become relevant.
Fourthly, we should try to be clear about why the minorities in Hong Kong are worried. They are not' worried about the agreement. They think it is a good agreement—as, I believe, everybody does. It guarantees to the people of Hong Kong all the freedom that they could possibly wish. It gives to them the right of abode. If we


ask ourselves whether or not this agreement is being well implemented, the answer is that it is being implemented step by step with the Government of China. Agreement has been reached in the Land Commission about land. Agreement has also been reached about Hong Kong's position in the Asian Development bank. A very important agreement was reached recently that Hong Kong will be an independent member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That agreement was reached between China, the United Kingdom and GATT. It is more important than some of the other matters that have been causing concern in recent weeks to the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Robert Parry: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fears of the Asian community in Hong Kong. He had long experience as Minister of State with responsibility for Hong Kong. What does he consider to be the true position of Peking if the British Government give British citizenship to these people? Does he really believe that after 1 July 1997 China will give Chinese citizenship to them?

Sir Peter Blaker: Peking has made it clear that it regards that question as a matter for the British Government, which is exactly what I expected it to say. The hon. Gentleman's latter question has already been answered—it is open to Hong Kong people to apply for citizenship of the People's Republic of China, and that sort of position applies in many countries throughout the world.
I was dealing with the question of what was causing anxiety to the Indian community in Hong Kong. Why does it want us to take action now, on the assumption that the agreement will not work? I believe that the Indians are worried not that they are likely to be expelled from Hong Kong after 1997 but that they may be discriminated against. We must recognise that relations between China and India, and between the Chinese and the Indians, have not always been free from friction. However, I believe that after 1997 there will be a rather special position in Hong Kong. There will be not a free enterprise territory run by Communists, but a free enterprise territory run by the people of Hong Kong. That is the whole point of the agreement. I think that the people of Hong Kong will recognise the mutual inter-dependence of all elements of Hong Kong society.
The Indians are inclined to say, and I am sure that they are right, that they control 20 per cent. of Hong Kong's foreign trade. Will the Chinese people of Hong Kong, after 1997, want to destroy or render less effective a community that is so important in the running of Hong Kong's economy? Surely it is clear to us now that China has understood the importance of confidence in a free enterprise economy and also, at least in part, the way in which a free enterprise economy works.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to explain away the concern of some of the Indian community. Will he not, in the way in which he usually attacks these matters, be absolutely frank and admit that, regardless of the present contribution of the Indian community to the welfare of Hong Kong, there is a past history that worries many Indians? They were the upholders of law and order under the British Government. In terms of the Pathan riot squad and acting frequently as

prison warders and night watchmen, they were the maintainers of law and order. They will not necessarily be popular in the future social order of Hong Kong.

Sir Peter Blaker: I do not accept that premise. If Hong Kong is to run itself—which I believe will be the case, and which is the whole basis of the agreement on which everyone has been congratulating both Britain and China—the hon. Gentleman's point is not valid.
I want to cite an example that shows that Chinese and Indians can co-operate. I am surprised that it has not yet been cited. It is the example of Singapore. I believe that the Foreign Minister of Singapore is an Indian—Mr. Dhanabalan; he certainly was when I was a Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, which is predominately Chinese, is or recently was an Indian. There are other Indian Ministers and also prominent Indians in every walk of life. There is co-operation and equal rights between Chinese and Indians in Singapore, though it is a Chinese-dominated society in terms of numbers. I do not see why the Indians should be so pessimistic about the possibility of Hong Kong operating on a similar basis.
I say again what I said in the previous debate—that I believe that the agreement will be observed because it is in the interests of China as well as the people of Hong Kong that it should be observed. However, I take comfort from the fact that if things do go wrong, the Government—as I understand it—have kept the door ajar.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has already been noted that the House had an earlier and more lengthy opportunity of considering substantially this order on 16 January. However, on 16 January it so happened, for reasons which are not directly connected with the future of Hong Kong, that I was not a Member of the House. Therefore, I take the opportunity as briefly as possible afforded by tonight's debate of placing on record my anxieties about the future consequences of the changes which the order will make in the nationality law of the United Kingdom.
Those changes are two. The first is that we are extending British nationality at present to 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese. It is British nationality because we repeatedly call it British nationality; and, because they are to be designated British nationals, their passports are to be issued in the name of Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State, and are to be renewed or issued as necessary by the consular posts of the United Kingdom. In every natural respect those who obtain that status will be regarded as British nationals.
The world knows what it thinks a British national is. It thinks a British national is a person who has the same rights in relation to the United Kingdom as a national of any other country normally has in relation to that other country, notably the right of entry and abode. That right does not inhere in that status. Therefore, the question arises, what is to be the future, in the event of there being a strong desire on the part of the holders of that status not to remain in Hong Kong, and if they were to look to the United Kingdom, of which we are making them nationals, as the natural place of abode or of residence?
It is not necessary in order to consider that prospect seriously to cast any doubt on the bona fides or to deny any of the hopes attached to the People's Republic of China,


although our memories do not have to be long to survey a different scene in that People's Republic of China. It is simply necessary that our people have understood that the calling in of the implication of the conferment of our nationality on 3·25 million Chinese is not something which rests in the power of discretion of the United Kingdom. It depends on the behaviour of others and on circumstances over which, by definition, we shall have no control.
If those circumstances were so to develop that the implications of British nationality were to be sought, we should come under intolerable pressure in the world at large and within the United Kingdom community to acknowledge the reality of nationality, and that that reality cannot be devoid of a right of entry and of abode. Therefore, I believe that we are creating a potential commitment in what we are doing which we have no right to create and which I do not believe is fully understood by those outside.
It is not absolutely clear why we have thought it necessary to do so, or why we have had the concurrence—no more was needed—of the Chinese Government in doing so. It is not clear why a people so sensitive and proud as the Chinese should have been so ready to concur in our nationality being conferred on 3·25 million Hong Kong Chinese. It is not absolutely clear why, since a travel document and a passport of Hong Kong is to be available for ethnic Chinese after 1997, the availability of that document as a travel document should be regarded as so singularly important. I fear that it is regarded as an insurance that can be claimed in due course upon the strength of the implications of what we are doing in extending in this way our nationality.
That is the largest of the two changes that we are making, and potentially the most dangerous. The second has already been referred to quite extensively, and I shall therefore refer to it only briefly. It is that those who would otherwise be stateless are, by virtue of this order, to be able to obtain the status of British overseas citizenship. It is not clear, if they are stateless without it, what state they have with it.
Much has been said about the passports that will be available to the British nationals (overseas), but little has been said about the passports of the British overseas citizens, although I presume that they, too, if they are issued at all, will be issued in the name of Her Britanic Majesty's Secretary of State. There again, we are proporting to give a status to which there does not attach the most valuable quality and characteristics that national status and the possession of a nationality gives throughout the world. In doing this, we are incurring the danger of misunderstanding, and of being accused of double dealing in offering something and, upon it being claimed, its reality being found to be virtually non-existent.
We are in this position, as those of us who lived through the debates on the British Nationality Act 1981 are aware, as a result of the transformation of our nationality from one that rested upon allegience, before 1948, to one that now has a quite different basis, and which we have endeavoured, in line with other countries, to equate with connection with this United Kingdom, of which it is the nationality and the citizenship. We have been left with loose ends, and I fear that the manner in which this matter proceeds in regard to British nationality has left two loose

ends—one large and pregnant with major danger, and the other, although minor in its scope, still pregnant with understanding and disgrace.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I feel that I must criticise the Government because we should have had this debate yesterday, and it should have gone on for a much longer period than the time allotted to it tonight. Whoever in the Government is responsible for this change should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for compressing this debate into one and a half hours, which is not being fair to hon. Members.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the promise that was made by my noble Friend Baroness Young on 19 February 1985, when she promised that the order would be withdrawn and revised to take account of the views expressed. In the debates that took place in this House and in the other place, many expressed grave doubts. I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what has gone on in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, which overwhelmingly asked for safeguards for the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. They are not ethnically Chinese, and are not entitled to Chinese citizenship. Their only national status is that of British nationals overseas, and as far as I am aware that gives them no right to live anywhere, and cannot be passed on to their children.
I am speaking particularly on behalf of the 6,000 people who make up the Indian community, because most of them come from families which settled in Hong Kong many years ago and regard Hong Kong as their natural home. In 1947 they opted to stay in Hong Kong rather than accept Indian citizenship, and one of the problems about that is that India does not offer dual citizenship.
These people opted for Hong Kong because they believed in Hong Kong, and that is where they want to stay for ever. The community has always supported Britain, and has always been on our side. There is great anger in Hong Kong about the Government's behaviour.
This week I received a letter from a lady which stated:
We are spending four months in Hong Kong where my husband is visiting Royal Society professor at the university here. (Our home is in Hale. Altrincham.)
She is lucky—she has a very good Member of Parliament. Her letter continued:
Having talked with many people here in Hong Kong, Chinese and expatriate alike, we have been saddened by reports of the Government's attitude towards the ethnic minorities, particularly the Indians, and very aware of the deep concern here for these people.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems to believe certain things. First, he seems to believe that minorities will have the right to live in Hong Kong as a matter of law. In fact, I have been told that the right to live in Hong Kong will be subject to the powers of another nation—in this case, China, of which these people are not nationals.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend seems to feel that if we accede to the claims of that small number of people the position of other British overseas citizens will be affected. I remind my right hon. Friend that in the case of Gibraltar and the Falklands we have done something for the people who live there.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend argues that to accede to the requests of these people would wrongly imply doubt about the commitment of the Sino-British joint declaration. The fact is that the Chinese Government


believe that providing the Indian minority with an effective form of nationality is a matter for this Government and not for the Chinese Government.
Fourthly, my right hon. Friend seems to say blithely that if, in 1997, there is pressure for these people to leave Hong Kong, the Government of the day in Britain will consider sympathetically whether to admit them to the United Kingdom on a case-by-case basis. I am afraid that that has not assured the Hong Kong people or the Legislative Council. I believe that some of my right hon. Friend's statements are erroneous. People in Hong Kong to whom I have talked do not share my right hon. Friend's equanimity on this issue. They think that it is less than satisfactory to be given a vague non-binding assurance rather than a legal entitlement, which would at least put their minds at rest. They do not want to be the boat people of 1997. They want effective citizenship which guarantees them the right of abode somewhere.
Of course, numbers are important, and I have always agreed with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) on this point. Over the years we have made a total mess of immigration. It is not a matter of the total population of Hong Kong wanting to descend on this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) pointed out the difficulties if large numbers of people want to settle here. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will give some thought to this also—that we have a cut-off date, for example, in 1990, by which time all non-Chinese BDTCs should be required to register. and those non-Chinese BDTCs who have no other nationality available should qualify for full British citizenship. The time to do that is now, not in 1997. A three-year cut-off period would at least give the authorities time to examine each application.
I believe that there is something called justice and that the people who have given great loyalty to Britain over the years are entitled to some consideration. They do not want to descend on this country. They want to stay in Hong Kong, because it is there that they have their families, homes and businesses. All I ask is that they should have some security and not be left as stateless persons. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister can give some assurance. If he cannot give any assurance, I am afraid that I shall not vote in the Lobby with my hon. Friends.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: The Government have wisely yielded on the two issues on which they should never have demurred for such a long series of debates. A sinner's repentance—to a Presbyterian, that is particularly attractive—is always a plus and a bonus. The Government have many pluses and bonuses to earn in the hereafter.
We are pleased that the argument for the passport endorsement making it clear that Hong Kong British people do not need visas to visit Britain has at long last been accepted. It is only right also that ex-service men who have done their duty by this country will be granted full British citizenship or the right to settle in Britain. The protracted arguments in debate after debate which have been required to achieve these minor corrections should never have been necessary. That sad fact shows how mean minded the Government of the present Prime Minister are.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that there are many other examples of that meanness of spirit in many fields of policy. One of them, in this very matter of retreat from empire, is the continued refusal of the Government to accept their responsibilities—our responsibilities, British responsibilities—for the 11,000 or so British nationals in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese and who, unlike those of Chinese origin, are not entitled to Chinese citizenship. Their status as British nationals overseas gives them no right to live anywhere and cannot be passed on to their children.
Government spokesmen have trotted out in this long series of debates all the old arguments of evasion and, excuse and supposed explanation. Let me briefly try to counter some of their obfuscation. These 11,000 or so British nationals overseas—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: British overseas citizens.

Mr. Faulds: No, they will now be called British nationals (overseas) if the order is passed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will catch up with that in time.
Those British nationals (overseas) are not planning en bloc to decamp from Hong Kong. Their lives are committed to that series of island territories. They simply seek the security of a proper citizenship, not a paper one. They do not want to have to leave their homes in Hang Kong. They just want that security of citizenship.
The agreement guaranteed right of abode to everyone who already has it but excluded non-Chinese from Chinese nationality. It is Her Majesty's Government's responsibility to put right their statelessness. It is not China's responsibility as those people are not nationals and China has no ultimate responsibility for them. The Government know that very well. Although I have been a long time friend of the People's Republic, I am convinced that if we abdicate our post-imperial responsibility, future Chinese Governments will behave with proper consideration. China does not abandon or abrogate its international commitment.
There were earlier arguments put forward by Her Majesty's Government that the Chinese majority in Hong Kong would resent special treatment for the minorities. That devious pretence was put paid to by the Legislative Council's generosity in stating its understanding of the vulnerability of people without a secure nationality. Indeed, it has endorsed the need for special treatment.
Finally, there was the argument that the People's Republic of China would consider special treatment as showing that the United Kingdom and Hong Kong Governments lacked faith in the agreement. The Chinese Government is much too sensible and much too sophisticated to credit such nonsense. Indeed, the pro Peking press in Hong Kong supported the proposed changes. One newspaper, which takes the official line, called in question the right of abode in Hong Kong, proffered by Her Majesty's Government, as having anything to do with citizenship as such.
All those who know Hong Kong best, from businessmen to parliamentarians—and there are many of them in the House—from journalists to ex-governors of the place, have urged the Government to be generous in this last exercise of our colonial exit. It can be only the lack of vision and the mean spirit of the present Prime Minister that prevents a proper resolution of this last issue.
The Foreign Secretary is a warm-hearted and generous individual, and so, indeed, is the Home Secretary,


although he simulated some conviction in his speech a little earlier this evening. Ministers in both this House and the other place have made commitments in debate after debate that they would revise their views to take account of what was said in the various debates. Here, I must disagree with my old right hon. Friend who seemed to argue the contrary. I think that Blackpool is his place of abode normally. Ministers had need to do so because this matter has been pushed through on an Order in Council instead of through primary legislation, which the House could debate, and the point is then amend. If, indeed, both Houses had had that opportunity, they would have made an amendment on this particular issue.
I can best sum up the case that I think most of us in the House want to make tonight in the excellent coda to a document that some of us have received from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. It states:
The minorities in Hong Kong have won all the arguments, convinced the doubting and undermined all objections."—
I do not think that any of us in the House would disagree with that—
The government's response is unworthy of the calibre of the debate and the breadth of concern in both Houses of Parliament. We would urge members of both Houses to restate their opposition to the unamended order and to insist that the government keeps its promise and acts in the spirit of the debates in Britain and in Hong Kong.
I think most of us in the House tonight would strongly endorse that argument.

Mr. James Couchman: I shall detain the House for but a very few minutes.
I should like to add my welcome to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was able to concede two of the three issues that exercised the minds of many hon. Members on both sides of the House during our debate on 16 January. However, I must also register my disappointment that my right hon. Friend has not felt able to concede British citizenship and the consequent right of abode here in Britain to the non-Chinese ethnic minority British dependent territories citizens. While, clearly, that was the most difficult of the three issues, I am as yet not persuaded that my right hon. Friend has come to the right conclusion.
I have read many thousands of words—I am sure that everyone has—on the subject since our debate in January, and they have become fairly repetitive. Since then it has become clear that because, under Chinese law, only ethnic Chinese BDTCs can become Chinese citizens, the non-ethnic minorities would become stateless in 1997. The British national (overseas) status for the former BDTCs and the grant of the nebulous British overseas citizenship to their children and grandchildren born after 1997 merely postpones statelessness to the fourth generation, unless the Chinese decide to amend their law. That is something that they seem singularly unwilling to do. As has been said by several people, the people in Peking seem to prefer to leave that question entirely to the British Government as they see it as our problem, not theirs.
It is also clear that the Chinese ethnic majority in Hong Kong is not seeking to use the non-ethnic minority as a

Trojan horse to reopen the whole question of the status for Chinese BDTCs after 1997. Hence it cannot be claimed that there would be a knock-on effect in Hong Kong.
What about the possibility of a concession to the non-Chinese in Hong Kong being cited as a precedent at some future date should we give up any of our few remaining colonies thereafter? There seems to be no likelihood of any other colony being ceded to another sovereign power of such different political and philosophical status and attitude as the People's Republic. In the case of the Falklands and Gibraltar—two territories that could conceivably be ceded to another sovereign power rather than granted independence in their own right—very specific promises have been given that the will of the people of those two territories will be paramount—and in any case, we have already conceded precisely that right of abode to the Falkland islanders and Gibraltarians that the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong seek. I could quote Gibraltar and the Falklands Islands as a precedent for the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong. I believe that the remaining British colonies—and I went through that very short list this evening—which consists of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, British Indian Ocean Territories, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena and Tristan Da Cunha and finally the Turks and Caicos Islands are unlikely to produce a situation similar to that in Hong Kong.
I am one of those who believe that this country has given a home to as many people from overseas as it can possibly absorb. None the less, I believe that in the case for the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong, we are bound by the responsibilities of our colonial past to ensure that we do not bequeath a group of stateless children of British overseas citizens to the Government of 80 years from now. That would be a cop-out.
I will support the Government tonight, with some reservations. I will do so in the knowledge that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, there is still plenty of time for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary' to do what would be right by the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) did not conclude his remarks by saying that he would follow the logic of his arguments and vote against the order. I agree with much of what he said, and his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) put the case as succinctly as did any hon. Member in the debate. I was pleased that he concluded by saying that he would not support the order. That was the logical conclusion of the case that he advocated in his speech.
I was fortunate enough to be in Hong Kong over the Easter recess, and I discussed these matters at some length with the various groups involved, with representatives of the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations and with Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils. The House should not underestimate the strength of feeling that still exists in Hong Kong on this issue.
The Government's decision on the endorsement on the passport is greatly welcomed in Hong Kong. It had been asked for vigorously by the people in Hong Kong for some time. One point that was made earlier in the debate is that


there has been an irritating need for people to obtain and pay for entry certificates if they are not to have difficulties when they arrive at Heathrow or some other port of entry. I should like the Minister to assure the House that that will not be necessary with the new endorsement in the passport. There has also been a welcome in Hong Kong, as there has been throughout the House, for the Government's decision on the ex-service men.
There is still a unity of condemnation in Hong Kong of the Government's action over the non-ethnic Chinese, and also of their unwillingness to listen to the united voice of the people in Hong Kong and the strong voices of hon. Members here and in another place.
The Government and this country have a moral responsibility towards that relatively small group of people. During recent years the number of Vietnamese refugees that we have taken in from Hong Kong is roughly the same as the number of the non-ethnic Chinese community in Hong Kong about whom we are concerned. That puts the numbers that we are talking about into context.
I do not accept, and do not think that many hon. Members would accept, that because we advocate that the Government should accept the representations on this issue, we must say that the other people whom the Home Secretary mentioned should also have a right to come to this country. That does not follow, and we all believe that, because of the unique nature of the situation, a ring fence could and should be put around these 11,500 people and they should be allowed to come to this country. That does not reflect upon the unique and excellent agreement with the Chinese Government, because the Chinese have made it clear that they regard that as a British responsibility and that the British Government should accept their responsibility and act upon it.
These people do not want their right to live in Hong Kong to be subject to the powers of China, a country of which they are not nationals. Their statelessness and lack of an abode in the world, if they need it, is the basis of their claim to the House for British citizenship.
I believe that we could find a solution to the problem. Indeed, they themselves have suggested that there should be a cut-off date, which would ensure that a ring fence was put around the problem, that numbers were clearly identified and that a continuing commitment was not being accepted. They have suggested that approach and we should be prepared to accept it.
On that basis, we on these Benches believe that this injustice should be rectified. We would wish to rectify it, if the opportunity arose, before 1997. With that in mind we will vote against the order tonight, in the hope that at some stage it will be rectified.

Sir Paul Bryan: I should have thought that in this frustrating game of politics most of us have found that however worthy our objective, and however we persevere in pursuing it, we seldom achieve 100 per cent. success.
In approaching the order, the Legislative Council set their sights on three changes, of which their Members made sure that we were aware, and more than aware. Their effective campaigning has achieved two of their objectives; but the third only in part. I hope that they will not view that as a failure, but as a positive success, if not a 100 per cent. success.
The endorsement of the passports will be provided in full. It only remains for the Government to persuade other countries to respect it. British citizenship for those who served in the defence of Hong Kong is, quite rightly, granted.
The Home Secretary has explained the reasons for the Government's attitude to the claims of the third objective, that of the British dependent territories citizens who are not ethnically Chinese. Of course, our Indian friends will be very disappointed.
I ask them not to underrate, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has done, the assurance in the Home Secretary's reply which reads:
If, however, any British national were in the future to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically the case for admission to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 148.]
The hon. Member for Battersea said that those words were inadequate, although he gave little in the way of an alternative. I took down his words. He talked about life being unpleasant or intolerable.
That is not an adequate substitute for those words in the statement. I consider the assurance that has been given to be exceptional. It is a serious step for a Government to commit their successors in this way. The assurance should not be scorned.
The changes should be seen as part of the broad and positive progress that is being made in Hong Kong on several important fronts. The machinery set up under the joint agreement is being seen to work. The all-important basic law drafting and consultative committees are regarded now by the people of Hong Kong with some confidence as a serious attempt by the Chinese to equate the law to the joint declaration. The original doubts as to the role of the joint liaison committee are beginning to fade, as its practical value is emerging. It has cleared the way for the endorsement of the passport, for entry into GATT with immediate and independent negotiating status and for membership of the Asian Development bank. The Land Commission, another body set up under the agreement, has shown itself to be flexible in dealing with the tricky problems involving revenue from land sales. These important changes are taking place against the background of Hong Kong's continuing prosperity and social development. Hong Kong will be building a third university by 1994, a unified stock exchange has been established and a housing authority—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the subject matter of the order, which is British nationality.

Sir Paul Bryan: Great progress continues to be made in all the spheres to which I have referred. Such progress is vital for the future of Hong Kong. The additional progress that the order represents is part of the advance that we want to see, and provided the British Government and Hong Kong's friends in this House and in the other place continue to show our genuine commitment to its wellbeing, confidence there can be maintained in the difficult years to 1997.

Mr. Jack Ashley: The essence of this debate is the Government's unreasonable


and unjustified attitude to Hong Kong's non-Chinese ethnic minority. Their refusal to grant them right of abode in Britain is an abdication of a clear moral responsibility.
I appreciate that some hon. Members even some Ministers, feel that if Britain took the appropriate action, it would upset the Chinese and be interpreted as an expression of no confidence in the Sino British agreement. While I am a warm supporter of that agreement and would not do anything to damage it, there is no substance in the view that providing British citizenship for the non-Chinese ethnic minority would offend China. It has been made abundantly clear in recent months by, in particular, Mr. Xu Jia Tun, head of the Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong, that the Chinese would have no objection to British citizenship being given to the non-Chinese ethnic minority.
In a recent letter to me, the Prime Minister said that no BDTCs in Hong Kong need fear statelessness, and the Home Secretary implied that in his remarks tonight. But that was a thoroughly misleading statement for the Prime Minister to have made. We understand the rights and privileges of citizenship. The new status conferred on BDTCs denies them the right of abode in Britain and denies them legitimate citizenship.
Statelessness is not avoided by handing out bits of paper. If it were, confetti would be invaluable. As we know, confetti merely showers good will. The members of the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong do not just want good will. Nor do they want the sympathetic consideration offered them by the Home Secretary. They want rights. The Government are proferring a bogus kind of citizenship, one that is devoid of the basic right of abode. It is a counterfeit status which, like any forged banknote, seeks to convey credibility but which will not bear close inspection.
The Government should recognise that they are creating bitterness and disillusionment in Hong Kong. They should be aware that their refusal may force the ethnic minority to leave Hong Kong and to seek citizenship elsewhere. Those people are crucial to the success of this unique proposal for Hong Kong's future. Their departure would seriously damage Hong Kong. The Government should not allow their nightmare fears, nor those of some right hon. Gentlemen, to supersede justice.
The Government have rightly acknowledged that the joint declaration, creating "one country, two systems", was a unique and imaginative concept. To help the non-Chinese ethnic minority who are the unwitting victims of this remarkable and warmly welcomed development, the Government should show a generous and imaginative response. It is only by granting citizenship to this minority that the Government can rise to the occasion and also act with fairness and justice. I hope that the Government will think again.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The order is important for the Indian community in Hong Kong but equally for the politics of Hong Kong. The hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) was right to draw attention to the wider considerations which unfortunately—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was quite wrong.

Dr. Bray: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is part of the problem. The people and the Legislative Council of Hong Kong attach particular importance to this House because it helps to build up their standing vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China in the difficult transition that they have to make.
Hong Kong made three requests. It is good that two of them should have been conceded by the Government. Some progress has been made. I agree that weight should be attached to the assurances given by the Home Secretary, but Hong Kong will make sure that the argument continues and is considered again by a future Government. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not be too discouraging.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The debate has concentrated on the third request made by the Hong Kong Legislative and Executive Councils, but the House will not forget the extent to which the Government have responded to the views expressed in the House when we last discussed these matters and the extent to which we have taken account of the views then expressed, as promised. It cannot be suggested that that debate was a waste of time and that the Government responded with deaf ears.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) was a little unfair in his comments about the procedure adopted. After all, we went to great lengths to follow a procedure which allowed the House to debate at length a draft Order in Council so that the Government could hear the views of the House and go away and consider them. We have met the wishes of Hong Kong on the passport endorsement. We recognise how important it is to the people of Hong Kong to know that genuine visitors will always be welcome here. In regard to other countries, the clear indication in the passport that the holder has the right of abode in Hong Kong, guaranteeing returnability to Hong Kong, should mean that the passport is every bit as acceptable as the present BDTC passport.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) for his comments. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) was rather churlish and showed no comprehension of the difficulty involved in finding an exactly appropriate form of words to put on the passport to reflect the rights which all of us wish to see stated clearly in it.
We have also met entirely the wishes of Hong Kong on service men. I am glad that UMELCO has welcomed what we are doing as "a fitting recognition" of the service given by these people.
The arguments about those British dependent territories citizens who are not ethnically Chinese have been stated often, but I should stress a few points. We cannot accept, as suggested by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), that a form of British nationality that does not carry with it a right of abode in Britain is not a genuine form of nationality. British overseas citizens are not stateless. They travel round the world on British passports. They are entitled to British consular protection. To accept that they are stateless is to accept that we have a continuing obligation to accept no fewer than 2 million BOCs living throughout the world.
I invite the House to remember that, while saying how valueless the citizenship was, the hon. Member for Battersea made a commitment that was so woolly as to be almost meaningless. All that he said was that if, unfortunately, a Labour Government returned to office, they would scrap the British Nationality Act 1981 and the Immigration Act 1971, and they would take account of the requests made by all sorts of people. What sort of an undertaking is that? What sort of a sign is it of the hon. Gentleman's true reaction to the order? What sign does it give us of the official Opposition's attitude to the order? It gives us no sign at all, and the hon. Gentleman might as well not have stood at the Dispatch Box. We are no wiser than we were before the debate as to where the Opposition stand on this matter.
The arguments of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) are always interesting. He said that we were extending British nationality to 3·25 million people. He did not mention that we are giving a different form of British nationality to 3·25 million people who already have British nationality, which is different from the impression which he may, unwittingly, have given during his speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale said that the non-ethnic Chinese wish to continue living in Hong Kong. We cannot give them the right to do so by conferring upon them British citizenship, but we have won them the right to do so by the agreement. That agreement is binding in international law, and it will be written into a basic law governing the Hong Kong special administrative region. British citizenship cannot be transmitted further than to the second generation born abroad, so British citizenship could not give to the non-ethnic Chinese a nationality that could be transmitted to their descendants any further than the British overseas citizenship which, under the order, can be transmitted to their children and grandchildren born after 1997.
That is an answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). We could no more guarantee British citizenship to the children and grandchildren of those people beyond the second generation born abroad by granting them British citizenship than we could by granting them British overseas citizenship.
We must remember our commitment as a Government to a firm immigration policy, but I repeat that if any non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs were at any time to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong, we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically their admission to the United Kingdom on a case-by-case basis. That has been described as a "strong moral commitment". I agree with that description.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 119.

Division No. 177]
[12 midnight


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Tom
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bendall, Vivian





Benyon, William
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, Harry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Blackburn, John
Ground, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hannam, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harvey, Robert


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Brinton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayes, J.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hickmet, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Hirst, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butcher, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cash, William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunter, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Clegg, Sir Walter
Key, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Simon
Knowles, Michael


Cope, John
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lamont, Norman


Cranborne, Viscount
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawler, Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J,
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lester, Jim


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Durant, Tony
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lilley, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lyell, Nicholas


Favell, Anthony
McLaughlin Patrick


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacGregor, Rt Hon Johr


Forth, Eric
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Major, John


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Galley, Roy
Maples, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian






Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mellor, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Merchant, Piers
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Speller, Tony


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spencer, Derek


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, John


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Newton, Tony
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steven
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Onslow, Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Terlezki, Stefan


Osborn, Sir John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thumham, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trippier, David


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pollock, Alexander
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Porter, Barry
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Waddington, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powley, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Waller, Gary


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Ward, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Renton, Tim
Watson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wheeler, John


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Whitfield, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitney, Raymond


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, Jerry


Rowe, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ryder, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodcock, Michael


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Mr. Carol Mather, and Mr. Robert Boscawen


Shersby, Michael





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashdown, Paddy


Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Atkinson, N, (Tottenham)





Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bell, Stuart
Johnston, Sir Russell


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Lamond, James


Boyes, Roland
Lead bitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bruce, Malcolm
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Caborn, Richard
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Canavan, Dennis
Martin, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maxton, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Michie, William


Clarke, Thomas
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clay, Robert
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Clelland, David Gordon
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Nellist, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Conlan, Bernard
Park, George


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Parry, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Patchett, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Deakins, Eric
Prescott, John


Dewar, Donald
Raynsford, Nick


Dormand, Jack
Redmond, Martin


Dubs, Alfred
Robertson, George


Eadie, Alex
Rogers, Allan


Eastham, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Ellis, Raymond
Sheerman, Barry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Ewing, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fisher, Mark
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Flannery, Martin
Soley, Clive


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foster, Derek
Strang, Gavin


Foulkes, George
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


George, Bruce
Wallace, James


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Godman, Dr Norman
Wareing, Robert


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Welsh, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Winnick, David


Haynes, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoyle, Douglas
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)



Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

Heathrow-Gatwick Helicopter Link

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neuhert.]

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am very grateful for this opportunity to debate the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter airlink. It is an issue of profound importance to my constituents.
The licence was originally granted to British Caledonian Airways Ltd. and British Airways Helicopters Ltd. for one year only in 1978. A new application was granted in 1979 for four years. In 1983, British Caledonian and British Airways Helicopters Ltd. jointly applied to continue the service for a further 10 years. The Civil Aviation Authority granted the application on 1 February 1984, but, on 10 June 1984, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport directed the CAA to vary the licence so that it would terminate four months after the M25 motorway between Reigate and Wisley was opened.
On 21 November 1985, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a direction to the CAA that, if the licence did not expire first, it should be revoked from 7 February 1986. British Caledonian applied for deletion of this note in the licence requiring it to cease operations.
The four conditions of this licence, which have remained unchanged since it was originally granted in 1978, are onerous. None of them is normally found in CAA licences for air transport operations, but they were considered necessary by the CAA in view of the particular nature of the operation.
In November and December 1985 the CAA held a hearing that lasted for 16 working days to deal with the application. In reaching its decision, the CAA took into account many factors and heard many witnesses who fully represented the views of the operators and the objectors. In its decision, handed down on 4 February 1986, it considered at great length the legal framework, the economic arguments, costs, revenue implications, airline competition and airports policy, the users, the choice between Airlink and Speedlink, the M25 motorway, the environment and the disturbance caused to it, present and proposed routes and the minimisation of disturbance. It acted as the responsible, expert body that it undoubtedly is.
Having considered all the arguments for and against the continuation of this important service, the CAA concluded that Airlink should continue with effect from such date as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State notified it. The CAA accordingly gave notice to the Secretary of State of its decision, and the Secretary of State indicated that he would need some time to consider the matter. However, before he had stated his position, in accordance with the earlier directive on the licence, the service ceased on 7 February this year.
The Secretary of State then invited representations from involved parties to the CAA's decision. The operator's own representation stressed the low number of relevant written objections and of non-Airlink incidents, the general misconceptions about the matter, the possibility that the joint local authorities' objections had not been based on proper advice and the exaggerated effects of Airlink on the environment.
British Caledonian pointed out that it had offered new routes and altitudes to reduce environmental impact on

particular areas at its own instigation and not as a CAA requirement. following earlier discussions between some of the objectors and Airlink staff. British Caledonian welcomed the M25 but questioned its ability to provide a suitable route both now and in the future—a question subsequently entirely justified by experience.
Further, the CAA in its earlier decision had agreed that travel by road remained an imperfect substitute for many Airlink passengers. British Caledonian pointed out that Speedlink could not possibly match the Airlink service, was not a suitable alternative and could never achieve the competitiveness needed by the London airports system.
Since its inception in 1978, the Airlink service has become a vital element in the London airports system. It has earned £10·5 million directly and £100 million in interline revenue for the London airports. Airlink has created 62 jobs and carried 600,000 passengers. I estimate that nearly half the existing passengers will in future avoid London if Airlink ceases—a potential loss of revenue to British Caledonian of £5 million to £6 million, and of about £14 million to United Kingdom airlines overall.
The management of British Caledonian—I am inclined to agree—believes that Airlink is being used as a scapegoat for environmental objections. The Government have paid scant regard to environmental objections to the Channel tunnel, with wide compulsory purchase powers being granted for land purchase. My right hon. Friend has suddenly adopted what appears to me to be a pious attitude to a service to which the environmental objections are questionable, and which produces much income for the United Kingdom in terms of tourist traffic and the utilisation of the London airports.
Motorway access is already proving unsatisfactory, especially at peak times in the morning and afternoon, which already coincide with airline peak times. The M25 is already heavily congested and Surrey police have now observed that, when a blockage occurs on the M25 in peak times, it creates a one-mile tailback in four minutes.
Traffic levels are now three or four years in advance of predicted levels, and in a year or two they will increase to a wholly unacceptable and extreme level. A blockage is now normal every day during morning and afternoon rush hours, yet the Minister is suggesting that Airlink should wait a year or two to see what the traffic position will be. The United Kingdom tourist industry cannot and will not thrive on such extraordinary complacency. If the Minister is so convinced that the motorway is adequate, he should see for himself the congestion at peak hours. He would then realise the deep anger and frustration felt by anyone with an urgent connection to catch at Gatwick or Heathrow.
I come now to the disparities between Gatwick arid Heathrow in the number of destinations operated. The frequency of services from Gatwick is inferior to Heathrow. Gatwick has 115 destinations, Heathrow 223—almost twice the number. The connecting helicopter service greatly reduces the impact of that imbalance.
The Government's twin White Papers on airline competition and airports policy set out a future in which Government support for the commercial development of aviation business would be strong, would develop and would build up competition. They envisaged a twin airports system and effective competition with foreign airlines. How is the Airlink decision helpful to British aviation in the light of those White Papers? Airlink was described in the BAA's 1978 report and accounts as:
the symbol of London's twin airports policy.


Surely, in Industry Year of all years, the Government should not have a policy of frustrating transport links.
This decision will end the productive and useful employment of a number of people. I should warn the House that, in my judgment, many more jobs are less secure because of what will prove to be a serious loss of revenue to British Caledonian.
The Minister's decision ignores the efforts made to meet objections in terms of changes of routeing and flights at higher altitudes. The environmental disturbance relating to that single source has been grossly overstated. Airlink represents only 20 per cent. of total helicopter movements in the west London area.
The French have an Airlink service between the Paris airports, despite the peripherique motorway. The cities of Tokyo and New York have helicopter linking services. Indeed, a British helicopter links Wall street with the New York airports. Houston has just introduced a city link helicopter service, for which landing fees have been waived for a specific period. Concorde aircraft do not meet any of the current noise requirements, yet they are permitted to operate charter flights from London Heathrow.
Surely it is discrimination of the worst possible kind when the S61 aircraft, which meets all the current and proposed noise emission standards for helicopters, is denied permission to operate. Where is the equity in that? Before the CAA, there were paraded a large number of professional witnesses who gave objective evidence on noise. Why, if the environmental issue was such a prime requirement, was that expert evidence ignored? Why has the Minister substituted his own beliefs for the expert evidence of others? The Secretary of State knows that a surface connection can never match the Airlink, and that the significant benefits of an airside connection will be lost.
The Speedlink coach service between 8 February and 3 May this year operated at about a 15 per cent. load factor. It carried, on average, six passengers per journey, at a time when there was no competition from Airlink, which stopped on 7 February. Before it stopped, Airlink, in competition with Speedlink, was operating at 50 per cent. load factors. The figures speak for themselves. How long will the Speedlink service continue at those passenger levels? Will my hon. Friend the Minister take steps to ensure that it continues?
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully why British Caledonian needs this operation. He must ask himself why a private carrier would have fought so hard for so long—since 1978—and would have attracted so much adverse publicity at such considerable cost to itself in terms of time, effort and money, to operate the Airlink, unless it seriously and conscientiously believed in the route and its value and profitability—an objective endorsed by many respected users and organisations, including the Air Transport Users Committee.
British Caledonian has a record of successful operations. It has consistently made a profit. It creates jobs and provides a valuable boost to the United Kingdom economy. Is it right that, when it has suffered several times recently because of events over which it has no control, the Government now reward its endeavours by restricting

it yet further? I greatly hope that my hon. Friend will, in equity and in accordance with Government aviation policy, permit the service to resume at once.

Sir Peter Hordern: rose—

Mr. Robert McCrindle: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I assume that the two hon. Gentlemen seeking to participate have the consent of both the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and the Minister.

Sir Peter Hordern: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on choosing this subject, and on the forceful way in which he has put his case.
I feel sorry for British Caledonian that it has been treated so harshly. It could have expected and should have received much better treatment from the Government. It needed the helicopter link to continue its operations, and the Government should have allowed it much more time to experiment with different height levels to see whether the environmental objections could be overcome.
I am surprised at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, considering his decision about the Channel tunnel. We were told that it did not matter if a service was to be provided across the Channel, and was to be built by private enterprise. Environmental issues were swept to one side. He was in favour of an improvement in services for passengers who wished to cross the Channel. But this helicopter link will no longer be available to those who like to use Gatwick or Heathrow airports, and must change flights rapidly. That is sad.
In announcing this change in a written answer, my right hon. Friend said that he was minded to make the change because of the improved motorways and the improved coach services, which would be able to ply so rapidly between Heathrow and Gatwick. The London Standard said this evening that the Surrey police have said that traffic using the motorway between Heathrow and Gatwick can at times tail back 10 miles from the M25-M3 interchange, while a 14-mile tail back in the M3 traffic waiting to join the M25 has been recorded. Anyone who has experienced delay on the M25 can but wonder at the decision by my right hon. Friend.
As for using the motor coaches, and the new rapid means of transport that the M25 will allow, that can be described only as a figment of the imagination. This is sad decision, but I noticed that my right hon. Friend said that he would allow time for experiment, and if it were found that the transport difficulties in getting from Heathrow to Gatwick were great, he would consider allowing the helicopter link to return. I hope that his decision will be reversed soon.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: As a consultant to British Caledonian, I know that the airline considers the helilink to be a vital element in developing services at Gatwick in competition with British Airways. The House will recall that that is basis of the Government's aviation policy, as outlined in a White Paper 18 months


ago. The decision that we are debating places a major impediment on British Caledonian in achieving the Government's objective.
All other cities with two or three airports are linked by helicopter, including Paris, New York and Tokyo. That shows that in other countries, although the same environmental consideration must surely apply, there is a considerable understanding of the need, when advancing aviation, to have such a helicopter link.
Whether or not we like it, the first class and business class passengers, which all airlines must attract if they are to maximise their revenue, simply will not use a coach service. The fact that they have to check in and out of customs and immigration if they are travelling from one airport to the other by road, which is not necessary with the helicopter link, undoubtedly reduces the ability of British Caledonian to continue to provide a competitive service.
Another small matter that may have been overlooked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reaching his decision is that in airline timetables throughout the world it is possible to include the time for a link run by a helicopter but not to include a coach service link.
The impression has been given that, as a result of the decision, the people immediately below the flight path of the British Caledonian helilink will be free from noise. However, it is estimated that no more than 20 per cent. of the total noise created by helicopters is created by this one. Even after the decision, some 80 per cent. of the noise will continue to be experienced. It is a pity that so much of the noise appears to be blamed on the British Caledonian helilink when private helicopters will continue to create a noise.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well disposed to British Caledonian, and that he has frequently expressed considerable admiration for the way in which it has triumphed through many difficulties, and is now in a relatively profitable condition. I appeal to him. We need more than words—we need action. That action could, with great advantage, be an announcement by him to reconsider this decision, which flies in the face of all that British Caledonian has sought to do in recent years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has been as eloquent and vigorous in support of his constituents' interest as he always is. In this case, he has emphasised the employment opportunities offered by British Caledonian. On that and other matters, my hon. Friend has been ably supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern).
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said about the importance and excellence of British Caledonian. My hon. Friends have argued strongly for the retention of the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick airports. I have to say what I am sure they already know—that many other hon. Members have argued no less passionately in the House and outside that the helicopter link should cease. The future of the helicopter link has become a highly controversial issue, the resolution of which was bound to invoke the anger of one side or the other.
The number of representations clearly illustrates the strength of feeling on both side about the issue. After

publishing the application, the Civil Aviation Authority received 2,225 objections, of which 949 were within the deadline allowed by the regulations. At the hearing, the authority heard British Caledonian and the Air Transport Users Committee in support of the application, as well as 25 parties representing objectors. In addition, we have received about 1,000 representations, including many hon. Members, local authorities, airlines, airports, residents' associations, other local bodies and members of the public. We have received two petitions—one in support of the helicopter link and one opposed to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met two deputations of hon. Members—again, one in support of the link and one opposed to it.
There has therefore been no shortage of information on which to base a decision. Naturally, we considered very carefully the Civil Aviation Authority's decision to grant British Caledonian's application, as well as the evidence submitted to the Authority, the transcript of the public hearing, and the representations made to us.
The decision which my right hon. Friend now has to take is whether to specify a date for the resumption of the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link, or whether instead to direct the Civil Aviation Authority not to issue a licence for the service in order to prevent the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter. In reaching this decision, my right hon. Friend has to weigh the environmental disturbance against the economic benefits of allowing the helicopter link to continue, and this must include an evaluation of the alternatives available to passengers who wish to travel between Heathrow and Gatwick.
I shall deal first with the question of environmental disturbance to which the Civil Aviation Authority cannot give the same weight as the Secretary of State for Transport. Without doubt, there is widespread and intense opposition to the helicopter link on the grounds of the environmental disturbance that it causes. This opposition has been increased by two aspects of the present application. First, the proposal to operate the helicopter link over three routes has increased the number of people who will be affected by the environmental disturbance. Secondly, the firm expectation following from a previous decision that the helicopter link would cease four months after the opening of the M25; has produced dismay and anger among those who thought that the issue could not be re-opened. We are conscious that some of the claims about the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter have been exaggerated—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—but. even after making full allowance for this consideration, it remains the case that the helicopter link has caused, and would continue to cause, widespread and genuine annoyance and distress.
I now turn to the economic benefits of the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick. We accept that British Caledonian, as well as other British airlines and the airports, earn valuable revenue from passengers interlinking over the London airport system. If such passengers are to continue to be attracted to the London airports system, there must be fast, frequent, comfortable and reliable links between Heathrow and Gatwick. Good links between the two airports will expand the choice of services available to travellers with their origins or destinations in the United Kingdom by enabling them to regard services from Heathrow and Gatwick as alternatives.
There is no doubt that, in the past, the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick has proved a valuable facility for passengers wishing to travel between the two airports. But the value of the helicopter link has been reduced now that the M25 has opened up motorway travel between the airports. If I have time I shall address myself to the effectiveness of that motorway link.
The speedlink coach service, operated by London Country, provides a frequent service with a high standard of comfort on board the coach as well as dedicated lounges at the airport terminals. London Country also operates the cheaper, but still direct, Jetlink 747 service. Alternatively, passengers can make use of the taxis and self-drive hire cars. Some may now find it more attractive to use their own cars.
These services and facilities offer travellers between the two airports a good choice of speed, comfort, convenience and price. We accept that continuing the helicopter link would expand this choice still further. In particular, we recognise the convenience to interlining passengers of an airside to airside helicopter service. But we believe that the wide range of alternatives to the helicopter should prove acceptable to the majority of travellers between the airports, and we hope that certain improvements to them will enhance their attractiveness to interlining passengers.
It may be that a few interlining passengers will be discouraged from using the London airports system because of their own perceptions of road transport or because a few connections which were possible by helicopter will not be possible by road, or because with the helilink they are able to change airports without going through customs or immigration.
We have looked very carefully at the various estimates of how many interlining passengers might be lost to British Caledonian and other British airlines, and what that could amount to in terms of loss of revenue and profit.
While we would not wish to understate the possible loss, we believe that some of the claims that have been made have been exaggerated, and we hope that the potential loss could be kept to the minimum by all those concerned taking a positive and aggressive approach to promoting the alternative road connections.
Weighing those arguments against each other has not been easy. Having, however, considered all the arguments, the evidence and the representations with the greatest care, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

announced last week that he was minded to give the Civil Aviation Authority a direction preventing a resumption of the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link.
In our view, the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter link can no longer be justified now that fast alternative connections are available which should prove acceptable to the majority of passengers wishing to travel between the two airports.
As required under section 6 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, my right hon. Friend has consulted the Civil Aviation Authority before giving it a direction, and our officials have written to British Caledonian. The authority has said that it has no comments to make on the proposal that the Secretary of State should issue a direction.
We realise that the announcement will have come as a great disappointment to British Caledonian and to the many hon. Members and others who have supported the continuation of the helicopter link. It has not made our task any easier to know that, whatever my right hon. Friend decided, we would disappoint as many people as we satisfied. But it is the responsibility of Government to make hard choices, and we cannot shirk that.
My right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement that in certain circumstances he would be prepared to look again at the need for a scheduled helicopter service between Heathrow and Gatwick, if the question were to be referred to him at a future date.
Given that the balance between the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter link and its economic benefits is fine, it would be wrong for us to suggest that the balance could never shift. For example—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley—there can be no guarantee that adequate surface links between the airports will be maintained in terms of speed, frequency and quality of the available services and facilities.
Nor should we rule out the possibility of operating an air link at some future date in such a way that significantly reduced the environmental impact. But any such reappraisal must be for the future, and after the alternatives to the helicopter link have had a year or two to prove themselves.
I very much hope that once my right hon. Friend has formally announced his decision, the issue will be accepted as closed, at least for the time being. The main task then will be to make the surface links work as well as possible.

Question pat and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.